# Why are "nine" and "new" so close in Romance languages? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 27, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245 "2009-10-27T00:39:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/1 "2009-10-27T00:39:57Z")
I recently became aware that the oldest bridge in Paris, the Pont Neuf, actually means “the New Bridge” in French. I had always assumed it was “Bridge Nine,” as neuf is also the word for nine. Why are nine and new so closely related? There doesn’t seem to be any obvious connection between the words. In Spanish, new=nuevo/a and nine=nueve. In Italian, new=nuovo/a and nine=nove. Is this a case of convergent evolution, or do new and nine come from the same word? ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/2 "2009-10-27T01:37:29Z")
I don’t think they have any relationship, they just sounded similar to begin with for the simple reason that there’s only so many combinations of consonants and vowels that you can make. If you have similar starting positions and fairly homogeneous ways of transforming words over time, you’re going to end up with the same result eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/3 "2009-10-27T02:14:18Z")
Romance languages all derive from Latin, and they are similar words in Latin. Nine = novem New = nova Not entirely surprising that they should be similar in the languages that have descended from Latin. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/4 "2009-10-27T02:58:22Z")
French also has nouveau/nouvelle/nouvel, which also means “new” under different situations. It is a more common word than neuf. ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/5 "2009-10-27T03:05:59Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > French also has nouveau/nouvelle/nouvel, which also means “new” under different situations. It is a more common word than neuf. Exactly. I think that’s why I always just assumed the bridge was named after the number. I guess usage has shifted since the bridge was named. Anyway, based on the posts so far, I guess it was just a case of convergent evolution. ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/6 "2009-10-27T04:05:30Z")
According to this web page ([http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1079.html](http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1079.html)), it’s a fluke: > [@](#): > > Larry Trask has found the root of the problem (excuse the pun): > \>Calvert Watkins reconstructs the PIE root for `new’ as \*newo-, and > > > that for `nine' as *newn (with a syllabic final nasal). Because of >this resemblance in the proto-language, it's hardly surprising that >many IE languages should continue to show similarities in their words >for `new’ and `nine’. But I’m not aware that anyone has ever > > \>seriously proposed a common origin for the two PIE roots. ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/7 "2009-10-27T04:22:28Z")
> [@RadicalPi](#): > > According to this web page ([http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1079.html](http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1079.html)), it’s a fluke: That is a great cite, **RadicalPi**. Thanks, everyone. I would have been pondering this for years without this board. ---
**Author:** ![charizard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charizard/32/4166_2.png) [@charizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/charizard)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/8 "2009-10-28T17:17:49Z")
If you feel like another fluke - in Chinese “nine” sounds almost exactly like “old”. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/9 "2009-10-28T18:52:12Z")
In Danish they are also very similar. “ni” and “ny”. ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/10 "2009-10-28T18:59:51Z")
It is also fabulous that someone named **RadicalPi** posted a cite about PIE roots. I love this board. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/11 "2009-10-28T19:59:50Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > Anyway, based on the posts so far, I guess it was just a case of convergent evolution. To be fair, neither of the two posts preceding this one by you actually suggest that there is any convergence; both suggest that it is a fluke and that they were alike all along, although neither backs it up with a nice cite like \*\*RadicalPi \*\*did. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-nine-and-new-so-close-in-romance-languages/515245/12 "2009-10-28T23:11:58Z")
> [@](#): > > But I’m not aware that anyone has ever > \>seriously proposed a common origin for the two PIE roots. Such a connection has been seriously proposed, for example by the mathematician Karl Menninger in “Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers”. [See also](http://hss.fullerton.edu/linguistics/CLN/sp02/RDA-Numeral%20Types.pdf) (scroll down to p.6) > [@](#): > > ‘5’ is generally related to ‘fist’ and ‘finger’, but M[artínez] credits the proposal that the word is also related to ‘all’ (207-8); ‘10’ seems problematic, but M prefers the proposal that the I-E root underlies \*deks- ‘right [hand]’ (209); and ‘9’ is generally related to ‘new’ (209). M concludes that achieving units for ‘1’ through ‘10’ remains far from demonstrating an original decimal system (212), as the grouping of ‘1’ through ‘3’ as deictic in origin, ‘4’, 5’, ‘8’, and ‘10’ as involving fingers or hands, and ‘9’ as ‘new’ (210) suggests. Thus, we see can bases for at least two, and possibly four distinct counting systems prior to the development of the decimal system.