From: João S. Lopes Filho
Message: 10194
Date: 2001-10-13
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] IE numbers
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:05:12, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Me to Miguel:
> >>Of course, you may agree that *-r is a suffix but will avoid the
> >>idea that *-r < *-n. Alright. However, is there truely such
> >>a suffix *-r < *-r?
> >
> >I still got no response so lemme prod further...
>
> There is a "suffix" -r, that does not alternate with -n-, and which
> has both animate and inanimate forms. For instance, g^hes-r "hand".
>
> >If *kWetwores is somehow from **kWet- + *-wr, this *-wr ending
> >is known to alternate with *-n-. Afterall, *-wr is a composite
> >suffix of *-w- and our pesky inanimate *-r (which derives from *-n).
> >What other *-r suffixes are there in IE except for *-e:r? However,
> >*-e:r doesn't belong here since the semantics would be too
> >problematic.
>
> What's problematic are the semantics of *-wr (which makes verbal
> nouns, and *kwet(w)- is no verbal root).
>
> >I don't see what your position is, Miguel. Do you think that
> >*kWetwor- is completely indivisable (in which case, we still have
> >your *n/*r-less *kWetesor to make sense of) or do you think that
> >*-r was a suffix, and if so, which one other than the very
> >alternating suffix that terminates *wodr, *?edwr and *yekWr?
>
> See above, there are pure r-stems in IE (why shouldn't there be?).
>
> My position is that I don't know whether *kwetwor(-es) is segmentable
> or not, and if so, how.
>
> 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>. As such, it seems to be a very ancient
> numeral stem (like *trei- < **tilati-, cf. P-Sem. *c^ala:c^-, Basque
> <hirur> < *tilut-, PAN *telu-), but in competition with other words,
> such as *me(i)w- "4" (which I have connected with Etr. <mach> "5" <
> *m(a)wa-kwe [with the same *-kwe "and" as in PIE *pen-kwe "...and
> five"], <muv-alch> "50") and *ok^t- "4" (*ok^t-oh3 "8" = 2x4), which,
> unless it's related to *kwetwor-, as suggested in EIEC (through
> *o-kw(e)t- cf. vocalic prefixes also in Afro-Asiatic forms such as
> Som. <a-far>, Eg. <?i-ft.aw>, Sem. <?a-rba-3>), may be related to
> Uralic *kutti "6", or, again, Etr. <huth>, depending on whether Etr.
> h- < *p- or from *k- (or both!). Despite all this, it's still not
> clear to me whether the final part of *kwetwor- is part of the root
> (comparable somehow with Semitic -a3u, Beja -ig: I'm not particularly
> impressed by the chances of a development `ayn > /r/ here, although
> it's phonetically plausible), or whether it's some agglutinated form
> of the root *wer- (*kwet-wor < "4 times/turns", like *tris-wor "3
> times"), maybe suggesting a phase where the unmarked word for "4" was
> supplied by one of the other roots (*me(i)w- or *ok^t-), or whether it
> is the noun *wi(:)r "man" after all, or yet something completely
> different (maybe related to the -r in *<g^hes-r>, <fing-er> <
> *penkw-ro-).
>
> Let me give my speculations on the numbers to compare them with Glen's
> (I can't find that post right now).
>
> 1. *sem- < **sam-
> 2. *duoh3 < **du(w)-aku
> 3. *treies < **tilati-atu
> 4. *kWetwores (*pWetwores) < *putu-(w)a:r(?)-atu
> 5. *penkWe (< *kem(t)kwe ?) < *kam(a)t- + -kua (?)
> 10. *dek^m(t) < *du + kam(a)t- (?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>