Re: [tied] Number games [was: the centum-word]

You mean the upper decads. I've got a theory about the Germanic numerals, but let me lay it out in a separate posting.

I think forms like <decimus> or <das'amá-> should be considered analogical, i.e. based on the surface form of *dek^m plus a thematic ending (well, one could consider *-mo-, as in Old Iranian *c^aTru-ma- 'fourth', as a less likely alternative); otherwise one wouldn't expect this Sieversian syllabic nasal after a light syllable. Note that Sanskrit has <saptama-> for "seventh" as well. I'm not sure which of the many attested ordinal formations (if any) is "truly" PIE (or whether there was just a single type of ordinal in the protolanguage rather than two or three shades of ordinality). At any rate, the hypothesis of "original" *-ó-s is simplistic a la Procrustes. Unfortunately, there have been enough language-specific and regional innovations in this area to obscure the historically underlying pattern. Anyone who'd like to speculate on numeral formation in IE should begin by having a look at that monumental collection of papers (dealing with all the branches individually) edited by J. Gvozdanovic' (1992. Indo-European Numerals. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton).

Talking of speculation, I suspect Hittite -an- '..th', -anna- 'for the ..th time', etc., derive from "singulative" *-h1on- (e.g. *tri-h1on- > *trijon- > teriyan-, *kWtru-h1on- > *kWtruwon, lexicalised as kutruwan- 'witness').

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:05 AM

Subject: Re: [tied] The centum-word.
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.