Re: [tied] IE numbers

There are some clear examples in Greek, e.g. Homeric
eidar/eidatos 'nourishment' (*h1ed-wr/-wn(t)o-), pi:[*w]ar 'fat' (cf.
pi:[*w]o:n, pi:[*w]eira < *-wer-i-h2, Skt. pi:van-, pi:vari:).

*kWetwores may be an innovation based on (neuter) *kWet-wr, *kW(e)t-
wo:r, rather than an original plural.

We have *-sor- in *t(r)i-sor-es as well, but it is not parallelled by
**t(r)i-wor-es.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:41:06 +0200, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 20:45:43 -0000, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
> > <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> > >All that
> > >can be said about the form of the numeral "four" is that it
looks as
> > >if it were a derivative in *-wr, i.e. *kWet-wr, collective *kW
(e)t-
> > >wo:r, animate *kW(e)t-wor-es. All would be very nice if *kWet-
were
> > >an identifiable verb root, but apparently it ain't.
> >
> > Do you mean the ending of the verbal substantive (Hitt. -war, -
wan-)?
>
> >That's what I mean, with heteroclisy lost in the surviving
fragments of the paradigm (presumably because the neuter was reduced
to indeclinability).
>
> I can find surprisingly little about this suffix in the handbooks I
> have closest at hand (Szemerényi, Beekes). In Indic, I notice that
> the forms are almost exclusively m., based on -n- (-va:, -vnas ; pl.
> -va:nas), and that the -r form has been lost in the n. (-va, pl.
> -va:ni), surviving only in the f. -vari:. In Hittite, on the other
> hand, the -r has expanded to some oblique forms (Ab. -warraz, pl.n.
> -warri), although *-n- is also firmly attested. As it is, I can
find
> not a shred of evidence for a form *kWetwVn-, which seems peculiar
in
> a paradigm that should have started out something like: [sg.m.
> *kWetwo:n(s), f. *kWeturih2, n. *kWetwr.] pl. m. *kWetwones, n.
> *kWetwo:r(h2), ord. *kWtun-[t]ó-. Besides the fact that there is no
> verbal root *kWet-, as you say.
>
> An alternative hypothesis, that *wor- in *kWet-wor-es is somehow
> related to *wi(:)r- "man", is rendered attractive by the existence
of
> f. *kWete-sor- / *kWeto-sr-, where *sor- is the feminine suffix
found
> in Hitt. -(s)sara or in *swe-sor "sister", Lat. uxor (< (i)ug-sor ?)
> "wife". It does have an Ablaut problem, though (wor ~ wi(:)r is
not a
> standard alternation).