> Petusek:
> > Well, the semantic motivation might be opposite. Do you think, we
> > could start with *dek^- , "to reach" [...]
>
> It's a 'reach', alright. This etymologizing is doomed for the very
> same reason that we can't deny the Semitic origin of *septm. There is
> no suffix *-m except for the accusative and this just doesn't make
> sense on a numeral at all, especially when undeclined. I think we'll
> just have to accept that *dekm can't be broken down in IE itself...
>
> Oh-oh, but then that would cause people to consider that mesolithic
> bands weren't so dumb afterall and actually did have a word for '10'
> many millenia beforehand.
>
>
> = gLeN
Oh, aha, a "reach", thanks. In Blazek's Numerals (Comparative-Etymological
Analyses And Their Implications, OPERA UNIVERSITATIS MASARYKIANAE BRUNENSIS,
FACULTAS PHILOSOPHICA, no. 322, 1999; by the way, I can recommend this book
to everyone, although Blazek's English is a bit funny, but so is mine, isn't
it?), the author concludes that "...the numeral "10" should be reconstructed
in two variants: (a) *dek^M and (b) *dek^Nt°. The indeclinable form of the
type (a) could be an adverb. The termination *-M indicates a frozen
accusative of a root noun. The form (b) resembles the nt-stems so
suggestively that it is probably a nt-stem (active participle with elative
function?). Both the conclusions imply the root *dek^-. Its primary meaning,
probably "to reach", allows also to reconstruct the semantic motivation of
the numeral "10": "reaching, accomplishing", "what is reached,
accomplished" -> "in the end". It means that at the time of its creation,
the numeral "10" was (became) the last numeral of its series..." (page 299)
Would this explanation be acceptable for you, Glen? Of course, that does not
agree with the idea of semantic shifts I ask about ("reach" > "completion" >
"right" > "right hand" > "10", well, this looks like a terribly long way,
almost unprobable at the moment, wow! :-) ).
Petusek
Petusek