Re: [tied] IE numbers

>But *kWetwores is *animate*, and ends in -ores, which puts it squarely in
>the category of words that follow the paradigm sg. -o:r, -r-�s, -er-m; pl.
>-ores, -erom, etc.

Numbers were not originally animate stems. Stems in *-o:r are
the result of *-r (inanimate) + *-x (plural). Originally, in
Late Mid IE, they ended in *-�rxe as in *wet:�r-xe "waters"

>*wedo:r. Whereas, without the plural *-xe, the accent fell on

the initial syllable. Hence: *w�t:r > *wodr. Come to think of it,
stems in *-o:r appear to derive from inanimates...

>> - *kW > *p(W) is much more attested and intuitive
>> than *pW > *kW
>
>So?

Therefore, your theory compared to mine is insufficient according
to Occam's Razor since you have opted for the more improbable
solution.

>My views on Nostr -> IE are pretty well defined. AA is another
>matter, since there are *no* solid reconstructions of AA yet.

You are irrational. If AA is not defined, then, by extension,
your views on the origin of *kWetwores which rely on AA
reconstructions are ALSO undefined. Hence, in all, your views on
Nostratic would appear to be undefined as well.

>A priori reasoning.

Granted, the use of only AA and IE is a judgment call. However,
since my theory has the benefit of incorporating further evidence
from intermediate languages like Tyrrhenian, Uralic and Altaic
to support the existence of the numeral in the past, your theory
falls short once again and remains the more inferior solution.

>I'm obviously not relying on Dolgopolsky's reconstructions.

Did you or did you not mention Dolgopolsky in a list of cognates?
If you don't rely on his work, then you shouldn't feel bad if you
were to throw them away, n'est-ce pas?

- love gLeN


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp