MCL-AND-SO-ON said:
>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.
Error number 1: Correlation does not equal causation. There might
be a correlation between tribes and small number sets, *but* this
does not mean that all tribes must have small number sets.
>IE 1,2,3 sem / oino-, duwo-, trey-, seem basic words,
Yes, they do. Ironically however, *oino- is probably a relatively
recent root formed from the demonstrative base *ei- and the common
thematic suffix *-nos. I'm still curious about the ultimate origin
of *sem-. So far, Bomhard's suggestion of a NWC connection (using
data from one branch called Circassian) still intrigues me for this
root, although I lack the data to verify.
>but I am tempted to treat 4 and 5 as later inventions made from "the
>corners number" (Latin "quetrum" = corner)
Yes, yes. I've heard this countless times before but how does
one *precisely* connect the two words together in a semantically
and morphologically pleasing way? The word for "four" is
reconstructed as *kWetwores. Explain it via this "corners" root,
which I assume you believe exists as a valid IE root based solely
on Latin?
>and "the fingers number" (English "finger", "fist" from IE *penkwros,
>*penkwstos).
Unfortunately, it's clear that the word for "finger" is composed
of much more than *penkWe. What you are implying is back-formation.
However, *why* did such a back-formation develop if this were so?
Shouldn't we expect an animate **penkWo-s instead for the numeral?
So many questions, so few answers.
>And 8 [okto:] is a dual whose singular occurs in Avestic.
Avestic is not synonymous with IE. To reconstruct the singular form
of IE *ok^to:u, one must find the singular form in OTHER branches
that support its existence, otherwise, it would appear to be a
language-specific back-formation. The word you're refering to,
if I recall, doesn't even mean "four" as one might expect, but
"the width of four fingers", or something of that nature (help??).
I can see such a word developing from *ok^to:u.
Even if you're right about a singular root **ok^tos, we are left
without a proper etymology once again. Does it derive from **ok^-
or **ek^-? Must we assume more speculative roots or root-splicing
to cover a bad theory? It would seem simpler to just accept that
*ok^to:u is derived from a corrupted dual of *kWetwores, no?
-------------------------------------------------
Glen Gordon
Webdeveloper
home:
http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
email:
glengordon01@...
ph: (604)904.0320
-------------------------------------------------
>
>s regards making new names for numbers, compare Russian, whose wored
>for 40 is not the outcome of IE *[kwetra-(d)ktmta] or the like but
>"sorok"; I read a theory that this "sorok" started as "the hides
>number" because the Rurikid Viking dynasty in early Russia demanded
>tax as batches of 40 animal fur hides: Old Norse `sark' = "skin".
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp