Re: [tied] IE numbers

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:42:42, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>My theory is as follows, which is much more involved and mostly
>lacking in easy parenthetic reconstructions and ad hoc slice-and-dice
>etymologies:
>
> Late IE Late-Mid IE Old IE IndoTyrr
> c.5000-4000 c.6000-5000 c.7000-6000 c.9000-7000
>------------------------------------------------------------
>1. *sem- *same "heap" *same "heap" --

Why "heap"?

> *dus- "bad" *t:ëu *t:ëu *t:ëu

What has "1" to do with "bad"? What is this <t:> anyway?

> -- *t:ë- *t:ë *t:ë
>
>2. *dwo:u *t:Waxë -- --
> *dwix *t:Wëixë *t:Wëi *t:Wëi
> *dwo- *t:Wa- *t:Wa *t:Wë
>
>3. *treies *kWëlëiës *kWëlëi *k:Wël

?

>4. *kWetwores *kWëtWarës *kWatWën --
> *kWet(w)e- *kWëtWë- *kWatWë *kWat:Wa
>
>5. *penkWe *pënkWë *pënkWë *pënkWë
>
>6. *swek^s *swëksë *swëksë (?)
>
>7. *septm *sëptëm *sëptëm (?)
>
>8. *ok^to:u *kWëtWaxe *kWëtWaxë (?)

Where does the o- (*h3o-, *h1o-...?) come from? Why not **kWVt ->
*kWt as in *nokWt- "night"?

>9. *neun *nëurë *nëurë (?)

-r > -n ???? You gotta be joking.

>10. *dek^m *t:ëkëm *t:ëkëm *t:ë-kam
>
>20. *wi:k^mtix *këmtëixë *kamës(kamët-) *kamët

Where does the *wi: come from?

>How *penkWe derives from *kem(t)kwe and how that makes much sense
>semantically is beyond me.

*kemt-/*komt- is "hand". "One, two, three, four, and the hand..."

>Why does *r in *treies derive from *l
>in this instance but not others?

Seems to me you're suggesting the same thing [*treies < *kWëlëiës],
but with a bizarre kWl- > tr- development. tl- > tr- is a natural
development (most languages that allow initial clusters like this have
tr- but not tl-, while kl- and kr-, or pl- and pr- are both about
equally common).

>What is the rule behind this? Why
>does *u sometimes beget IE *We (*putu-(w)a:r(?)-atu > *kWetwores)
>and sometimes *e (*du-kam(a)t- > *dekm) and sometimes from *e,

*u > *we. Labialization is later sporadically lost, especially on
non-velars and in polysyllabic words.

>ignoring for the moment the obscene *p>*kW problem? Why do you
>keep using parentheses and question marks everywhere?

Because this is all speculation. Trying to reconstruct back from PIE
towards Nostratic, the uncertainties and pitfalls become larger.
Questionmarks and parentheses are necessary even when reconstructing
at much shallower time-depths.

>That's a big
>hint that you fail to devise consistant sound rules just like
>Dolgopolsky! Not very Grimm-like, is it? Grimm had rules and that's
>why people like him.

I prefer Verner.