From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 10059
Date: 2001-10-09
> MCL-AND-SO-ON said:from "the
> >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
> >corners number" (Latin "quetrum" = corner)*penkwros,
>
> 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
> >*penkwstos).That leaves just two and three unaccounted for, right?
>
> 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