Well, I think the search for an earlier *-n is more trivial than
the search for an early compound meaning "three men" just denote
the term "three". How does one say "three inanimate objects", Mig??
The use of *-n (an inanimate suffix) for a collective term such
as "four" is not very bizarre at all (*wodr "water" < *wat:-en) and
we know, based on the pattern of the heteroclitic that final *-r
probably derives from *-n. We also know that *kWetwores terminates
with a plural *-es.
Taking away *-es, we have a root *kWetwor-. Since we have a
consonant-final *-wor- at the end, we know that the derivation
from a thematic root *wiro- (to add to the problems of vocalism!)
is completely untenable without plugging the leaking dam with
more duct tape. It just doesn't work.
As for the use of *-sor, it might be possible, I just thought, that
a Mid IE root for "four", *kWatWe (not just *kWatWe-n), may have
survived to relatively late times. This is similar to the situation
with "two" where it seems that both *t:Weixe (*dwix) and *t:Waxe
(*dwo:u) had survived to Late IE.
From this root *kWatWe, we obviously can get *kWetW�-xe "eight"
(*ok^to:u) that I've mentioned before. Perhaps, if *-sor is truely
an archaic ending, it might be that your *kWetosor comes from
earlier *kWetW�-ser. Hmm.
BTW: Thanx, guys/gals, for the correction about the isogloss
thing... although I coulda swore that *-sor survives in
Hittite somewhere as -s^ar-...
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp