Re: [tied] IE numbers

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

> I'm still curious about the ultimate origin
> of *sem-. So far, Bomhard's suggestion of a NWC connection (using
> data from one branch called Circassian) still intrigues me for this
> root, although I lack the data to verify.

"Ultimate" is a tricky word. Anyway, *sem- looks pretty archaic
within IE. Note its pronominal functions (same, some, etc.) and its
agglutinative use in pronominal declensions (*to-sm-i etc.).

> The word for "four" is
> reconstructed as *kWetwores. Explain it via this "corners" root,
> which I assume you believe exists as a valid IE root based solely
> on Latin?

As with "five" ~ "fist", we have words which are probably somehow
related, but it isn't clear which concept is more primitive. All that
can be said about the form of the numeral "four" is that it looks as
if it were a derivative in *-wr, i.e. *kWet-wr, collective *kW(e)t-
wo:r, animate *kW(e)t-wor-es. All would be very nice if *kWet- were
an identifiable verb root, but apparently it ain't.

Piotr