Re: [tied] IE numbers

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:10:35, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>Well, I think the search for an earlier *-n is more trivial than

The point is that there is no trace of *-n- in the word for "4".

>the search for an early compound meaning "three men" just denote
>the term "three". How does one say "three inanimate objects", Mig??

Old Irish is more or less like Polish in this respect, in having
separate masculine personal forms of the numerals (oínar, dïas, triar,
cethrar, cóicer, se(i)sser, mórfes(s)er[!], ochtar, nónbor,
de(i)chenbor)

>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.

*-n is _not_ an inanimate suffix. Animate n-stems are extremely
common (*-o:n/*-e:n, *-nos; pl. *-ones). The neuter n-stems come in
two variants: stems in *-men, and *-r/*-n- stems, as a result of a
soundlaw *-n > *-r, except after *m.

In general, I maintain that an */r/ is an */r/, except when it
alternates with */n/, in which case it's an */n/, historically. In
the word *kWetwores, the */r/ does never show a variant */n/, so the
null hypothesis is that it represents earlier */r/.