Re: [tied] IE numbers

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 4:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] IE numbers
>
>
> As you know, I think the initial consonant in this word was
> originally *pw, as evidenced by the f- in Germanic, and the whole

may

> derive from **put(u)- through *pwat(w)- > *kwet(w)-. This in turn
> can be related to Afro-Asiatic *(?a)p.ut.u- "4" (Chadic <fud.u>,
> Egyptian <?ift.aw>, Somali <afar>, Beja <fad.ig> and Semitic <?
> arba3u> < *<?a-p.t.a-3u>), possibly to Etruscan <huth> "4" and more
> remotely to e.g. Basque <laur> if from *l-aputV or even (to make
> Torsten happy) Proto-Austronesian *<xepate>.


--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> While not questioning (or supporting) the validity of you
comparison,
> let me only correct the PAN reconstruction, which is *Sepat in more
> recent literature. The fricative *S is currently thought to stand
for
> dentialveolar [s] (while the sound traditionally marked as *s is
now
> described as a palatal or palatoalveolar fricative).
>
> Piotr
>
>
Life is hard, you can't be happy very long (sigh).
As I recall, you had a derivation PAN *Sapuy > *hapuy in an earlier
posting?
That's the great thing about proposing loans, you get to choose the
most convenient form available (within reasonable limits, of course).

Torsten