Re: [tied] IE numbers

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:29:45, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
>>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-ós, -er-m; pl.
>>-ores, -erom, etc.
>
>Numbers were not originally animate stems.

They were. Proof: trei-es and kwetwor-es, with anim. pl.; duo:(u) and
ok^to:(u) with anim. du.

>Stems in *-o:r are
>the result of *-r (inanimate) + *-x (plural).

No. They are animate, and singular. What's inamimate and collective
about father, mother, sister, actor, donor...?

>>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?

Throwing away Dolgopolsky doesn't make the Afro-Asiatic, Uralic and
Altaic words I quoted go away. His reconstruction (*l(e|ä)pV) is
wrong (as I believe is Sammallahti's (*dä(bd|pp)V)).