Re: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> > Petusek:
> > > Well, the semantic motivation might be opposite. Do you think, we
> > > could start with *dek^- , "to reach" [...]
>
> > 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...

Perhaps, we Blazek reconstructs two basic forms: *dek^M° and *dek^Nt°

Their paradigms:

INDECLINABLE:

cardinal *dék^M
ordinal *dék^M + -ó- (declinable)

SINGULAR

cardinal *dék^Nt
ordinal *dek^Nt-ó-
abstract noun *dek^Nti-

DUAL

cardinal *[d]k^Nt-iH1

PLURAL

cardinal *[d]k^Nt-es or *[d]k^onts; gen. *[d]k^Nt-óm in *k^Ntóm "100" <
*dek^Nt dk^Ntóm "decad of decads"

COLLECTIVE

cardinal *[d]k^ónt-H2

> Should I take it from this you're confident that the superlative
> suffix (PIE *mo) always had the precursor of the thematic vowel in
> pre-PIE?
>
> > 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.
>
> A transparent set phrase might do the job.
>
> It seems that *penkWe originally meant 'fist' or 'palm'. There are
> Nostratic cognates:
>
> Uralic *peyngo 'fist, palm'
> Altaic *p'aynga
>
> I wonder if *dek^ should be glossed as 'attain', with a sense of
> attaining the correct standard. Then *dek^ without any extra
> consonants might once have meant 'right (as opposed to left)'.

Hm, might be.

> My biggest problem with this idea is then whether it is reasonable
> to assume that counting on fingers starts on the left hand. It
> seems to be widespread, but not universal.

Well, being widespread is enough, I think, it doesn't have to be universal,
does it? It might be understood as "from the heart-side" > "from the side of
your body that is much more important than the other"...?

Petusek