Jens:
>Well, how *do* you explain that the singular of the stem of the numeral
>'eight' exists in Kartvelian in the meaning 'four', if the IE dual form is
>to have been a *plural* instead? Did 'eight' originally just mean "several
>fours, be it eight, twelve, sixteen or higher"? How can sheer nonsense be
>avoided here?
It would seem that the "nonsense" here is the preconceived notions voiced
in the question itself.
The word for "eight" in IE is *okto:u while the Kartvelian form for "four"
is *otxo-. They happen to look similar but we know that similarity on its
own
is fool's gold.
If the Kartvelian form has somehow been borrowed from IE and that it
shows that the IE form at that stage (whatever stage that may be, probably
a late one) is being treated as a dual does not in any way prove that the
oldest stage of Common IE, that common to both Anatolian and the other
IE languages, had much of a dual number system.
The dual system is not ancient. I'd estimate about a thousand years old by
the time of Reconstructed IE at most.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus