Re: IE numbers

--- In cybalist@..., MCLSSAA2@... wrote:

> Someone wrote:-> > Hence, we obtain IndoT *kWat:Wa "four" (with

residual labialisation> > and a bit of a semantic shift). ...

>
> Some remote tribal peoples even now have a very limited number set,
> and it could be that some languages did not have a good number set
> until they had (and needed to count) domestic animals. IE 1,2,3

sem / > oino-, duwo-, trey-, seem basic words, but I am tempted to
treat 4 and > 5 as later inventions made from "the corners number"
(Latin "quetrum" > = corner) and "the fingers number"
(English "finger", "fist" from IE > *penkwros, *penkwstos). And 8
[okto:] is a dual whose singular occurs > in Avestic.

Does this mean that the numbers 5 and above, upto 10, in IE languages
are 'later' borrowings and do not represent *PIE?