On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:59:56 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer <
mcv@...> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:19:06 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:
>
>>So, why latin? some are identic utih skt. and avestan, some identic with
>>baltic some looks more osco-umbric.. I dont think is so clear as the
>>water this is inherited from latin.And if we think about the
>>construction of numerals betwen eleven and 20 we are lost in space.
>
>The numbers 1-10 are directly inherited from Latin.
For completeness' sake:
Lat.
u:nu > unu > un
duo:s > d(u)oi > doi
tre:s > trei > trei
quattru > kwat(t)ru > patru
qui:nque > kinke, -i > cinci (/c^inc^/)
sex ~> siea(p)se > s,ase
septe > sieapte > s,apte
octo: > oktu > opt
nove > noave ~> nouã
dece > dieac^e > zece (/zec^e/)
Note:
1) -s > -i as in Italian (doi, trei)
2) kW- > p- (patru), but loss of labialization before front vowels (cinci), cf.
Spa. cuatro, cinco.
3) The numeral 6 was influenced by 7 (we would expect something like *s,ei)
4) Latin short /e/ gave /ie/, then /iea/ before final -e and -a (but not -u).
After s-, the triphthong was reduced to /ia/ (sieapte > siapte > s,apte), but
elsewhere the result is /ie/ before -e (zece, Aromanian still dzatse).
5) -kt > -pt (cf. nocte > noapte)
6) /o/ > /oa/ before -e, -a (*noave > nouã), but not -u (opt).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...