From: tgpedersen
Message: 17938
Date: 2003-01-22
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>"nf "one-
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, guto rhys <gutorhys@...> wrote:
> > I looked up up Franz Bopp's original article on IE and Malayo-
> > Polynesian. He had a remark on Latin caecus: He relates it to
> Gothic
> > haih-s, and claims it should be divided ha-ih-s, originally
> > meaning "one-eyed", and compares it to ha-lt "limping", ha-
> > handed" and even ha-lf itself; the ha- part he claims to beof 'half'
> identical
> > to Sanskrit -ka in e-ka "one" (and -lf equal to the ending of
> eleven
> > and twelve). Any sense in this?
>
> Well, *-lb- in 'eleven' and 'twelve' is explained as meaning 'left
> over', so if IE *ka- meant 'one of a pair', the derivation
> makes sense. But what are the second elements in Gothic ha-ih-s,ayin),
> English 'halt' and (language?) 'hanf'?
> If you accept the implicit suggestion, supported if not proposed by
> Patrick Ryan in his Proto-Language works, that some PIE *h2 and *h3
> (our notation - he tolerates 4 PIE laryngeals) might alternate with
> *y (he derives them from a Nostratic phoneme yielding Semitic
> the Gothic -ih- might conceivably derive from the precursor of PIEMy thoughts too.
> *h3okW 'eye', presumably to be derived from *`oku. (I tremble at
> trying to relate it to Semitic `ayn 'eye' itself. Please, no half-
> witted comments about '`ayn' and 'eyne' being similar.)
>
>> I cannot explain '-lt' or '-nf', so although the idea might betrue,
> I don't think there's enough evidence for it. Moreover, don't weword
> already have PIE *sem with the meanings of 'one' and 'half'? One
> might therefore raise the weak objection that we already have a
> with the meaning proposed for *ka.Actually, I was looking for something to complement an analysis of
>
> Richard.