Re: [tied] The centum-word.

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 6746
Date: 2001-03-25

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:11:03 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>I'd say it's virtually certain that *dek^m(t), the decad names with *-k^mt-/*-k^omt- and *k^mtóm derive ultimately from the same base; it's only the details that are debatable. Glen has his own theory about the origin of "10", "100" and the decads. The view I adhere to is that *dek^N(t) (*N = *m or *n) is an old consonantal neuter with the collective counterpart *dk^oNt 'set of ten' which appears in compound decad names (also with dual and plural inflections). "100" was perhaps expressed as "ten sets of ten" -- originally *dk^ont dk^ntóm > elliptic *k^Ntóm, reanalysed as a thematic neuter.

What would the relationship be between **<dk^omt dk^mtóm> and the
lower decades, especially Germanic 70-90?

About the ordinals: it is often said that the common ordinal suffix
*-tós has its *t from *dek^mt, from where [i.e. from *d(e)k^mt-ós,
reinterpreted as *dek^m-tós] it spread to the other numbers. The
original suffix would have been thematic *-ós, added to the zero grade
of the numeral. A problem here is Sanskrit, which has das'amá- (<
*dek^m.(m)-ós), but still has *-t(h)ó in 6th (s.as.thá-) and 7th
(sapta-thá-). Why the aspirated /th/, and why in the numeral "6"
(saptathá- must be analogical after s.a.sthá-), where we otherwise
have good evidence of *tó-less forms (Gaul. suexos, Av. xs^tva- [?])?

My third point concerns the ordinal of "3". Both Beekes and EIEC,
based on the hypothesis of original *-ós, reconstruct *tri(y)ós, a
form for which there is very little support (Hitt. 3-an?). The
original form rather seems to be *trtiyó- (W. trydydd, Lat. tertius,
Goth. Tridja, Lith trec^ias, Slavic tretijI, Skt. trtí:ya-), which in
a number of languages spread analogically to the numbers "2" and "4"
(Skt. dvití:ya-, turí:ya-). Apart from clearly secondary forms like
Grk. trítos, Toch trit(e), "third" maintains a formation independent
of the *-tós which is [possibly] derived from *d(e)k^mtós. My
explanation, as I mentioned before, is that *trei- ~ *trtí- derives
from **tréty- ~ **trtí, with (regular) reduction of auslautend *-ty to
*-y.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...