On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:02:56 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>The Quechua words for "five" and "six" are <pisca> and <soqta> (cf. Aymara <phisca> and <suxta>). In Chacobo, a Panoan language, the words for "two" and "three" are <dávita> and <téreshen>. The proto-Miwok word for "three" is reconstructed as *tel.o- ... Many other such examples could be given. What are our numerals doing in the Americas?
Apart from my feeling that the Quechumaran and Chacobo examples above
are not particularly convincing, it's certainly true that coincidences
such as the proto-Miwok or the Proto-Bantu words for "3" are fully to
be expected. Usually, digging a little deeper or looking at the
general context is enough to dispel any doubts one might have about
their character of random resemblances. Certain coincidences,
however, are more worrysome. Old Bopp was, I presume, more than a
little worried about the Austronesian words for "2" and "3" (and I
additionally worry about "4": that's already three out six possible
matches, if we assume only the numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 are truly
ancient in PIE). And speaking of Miwok, another such accumulation of
coincidences is found in the Proto-Eastern-Miwok personal suffixes:
1sg. *-m 1pl. *-mas.
2sg. *-s. 2pl. *-tok
3sg. *-0
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...