Re: [tied] IE numbers

Miguel:

>The hypothesis that it may be from *kemt-, with (a) assimilation
>*kemt-kwe > *kenkwe > (a) kwenkwe, as in Italo-Celtic-Germanic;

Look, Miguel. I'm in no mood to talk with people who try to rewrite
IndoEuropean linguistics. The reconstructed root is *penkWe, period.
I'm going to briefly answer the more relevant of your questions
and let you mumble to your self in a corner in whatever asylum you
come from.

>You see no cognates so it must be borrowed?
>A "heap of stones" -> "one stone"?

Since it's a given that every word has an origin, our *som-
must also have an origin. Either it is inherited or it is
borrowed and both have equal probability until evidence is
found to support one or the other possibility. So far, the
NWC hypothesis has the greatest strength until a better theory
is provided.

And perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. I only
said "heap", not "heap of stones".

>What's this <t:> anyway?

Please search the archives. It is a "voiceless fortis". Note:

Mid IE Late IE
voiceless lenis *t *t
voiceless fortis *t: *d
voiced *d *dh

The fortis stop is a way of avoiding the improbable Ejective IE
theory while still typologically accounting for the absence of **b.
Fortis stops would derive ultimately from ejectives in the remote
past and so nothing is lost.

>> *dus- "bad"
>> < *deu-s- "to be abandoned"
>> < *deu-s- "to be alone"
>> < *t:�u "one"
>
>Any reason why we should believe this?

Note also Latin /unificare/.

>>I don't like odd developments such as this, but it is the best
>>explanation I have so far. It would be the result of contamination
>>with "four" which ends in *-twor- afterall.
>
>This is so lame.

A very logical arguement.

>If you prefer Grimm over Verner, you don't know a lot about IE
>linguistics.

I prefer neither. Both are important to IE linguistics.

- love gLeN


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp