From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 6831
Date: 2001-03-28
>>- You would also need *triH, *penkweH, etc. to explain the long vowelWhich got their length from...?
>>in the other decades. It's more parsimonious to conclude that the
>>lengthening (as if by *h1), and occasional voicing, was caused by the
>>following morpheme *-h1koNta ~ *-dkoNta.
>>- *d- "one" has as little going for it as *de- "two" (less, in fact:
>>*de matches *d in *duo:, while *d does not match *dh in Slavic >*h1edh- [no
>>Winter's lengthening in <jeden>, <odin>], Armenian <ez> >"one, only").
>
>I see no *d in any attested forms. When I do, I may find it more
>parsimonious to accept *d in the reconstruction. Until then, it is more
>logical to accept suppletive forms for singular and plural since that's how
>it appears in all the later forms in a multitude of languages. Thus, a
>singular stem *dek^m- versus a plural stem *k^ont-. I do not need to
>reconstruct **penkweH- because the length is caused by analogy with the
>lower decads.
>Since, we must logically accept the suppletiveness of the stem as"Two" as the plural of "one"? Are there any documented cases of such
>*dek^m-/*k^ont-, the only possible meaning for the apparent **de- prefix in
>the singular is for that of "single" or "one". Given that *oinos must be a
>later formation, it isn't beyond possibility that an unstressed form *t:e
>existed in Early IE for "one". In fact, we do see a similar form /thu/ in
>nearby Etruscan and one is tempted to reconstruct the corresponding stressed
>form of *t:e as *t:eu (cf. *kWe/*kWei, *se/*seu, *e/*ei). By doing so, we
>can explain *t:Wei "two" as an ancient plural formation on *t:eu (*t:eu
>"one" + plural *-ei).
>The hypothetical numeral however doesn't appear to be connected with *H1edh-It was the only link I could remotely think of.
>afaik unless we might divide it into *H1e [demonstrative] and **dh- (still
>not the phoneme we're looking for) but then again, I don't recall ever
>claiming there was a link here.