Re: Numerals query again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Harald Hammarstrom wrote:
> > I don't know of any particular reason but afaik in latin as well

as

> > vulgar latin it was as you say 11-17 as digit + ten and 18-19 had
> > subtraction. No romance language continues the latin 17-19 but

replace

> > them by (continuations of) decem et digit or decem ac digit or
> > decem digit asyndetically (e.g Catalan, modern (but not old)

French).

> > Spanish and Portuguese have long replaced their inherited seze

with

> > diecis'eis/dezasseis and there are also attested similar forms

for e.g

> > 12 (diz e dos), 13, 14 from the 13th century. Romanian has of

course

> > completely remodeled their 11-19 possibly by slavic influence or
> > other influence that spurred both the slavic and the Romanian
> > formations. Bearnese is unique among Romance lgs in having the

form

> > tr'es-ch'eys (three-six) for eighteen!
> >
> > Alll according to Price in _Indo-European Numerals_ ed.

Gvozdanovic.

> >
> > mvh Harald
> >
>
> To me it seems there is one system three in Alb. Slavic and Rom.

where

> different is just the preposition which binds the words. For Slavic
> should be "na"; for Alb. "mbë", and for Rom. "pe" and "spre"
> For "ten" we have in Alb. "djetë" in Rom. "zece", in Slavic

variants of

> "desiat"
> Now, let us see from 11 to 19:
>
> Alb. "mbë" means in, on, after; I will like to ask Abdullah how

here the

> "mbë" is "felt" by native speakers. Is this felt as "on" or

as "after"?.

> I doubt about this prep. being felt as "in" in this case, but I can

be

> wrong.
>
> Alb:
> njëmbëdhjetë (një-mbë-dhjetë), one-on-ten
> dymbëdhjetë (dy-mbë-dhjetë) , two-on-ten
> trembedhjetë
> katërmbëdhjetë
> pesëmbëdhjetë
> gjashtëmbëdhjetë
> shtatëmbëdhjetë
> tetëmbëdhjetë
> nentëmbëdhjetë
>
> In Rom. the things are a bit complicated due the short forms; the

prep.

> "spre" given as deriving from Latin "super"
> means "toward", "to" ("english "to" is for me a bit too generalised

and

> thus I would advice to see "spre" as "toward")
> Rom, literary:
> unsprezece (un-spre-zece), one-toward-ten
> doisprezece (doi-spre-zece), two-toward-ten
> treisprezece
> patrusprezece (*)
> cincisprezece (*)
> Saisprezece
> Saptisprezece
> Optisprezece
> nouãsprezece
>
> (*)there is no use of patrusprezece or cincisprezece. These forms

are

> weierd sincoped. For "patrusprezece" there is "paisprezece" and for
> "cincisprezece" there is "cinsprezece"; if the syncope/assimilation

of

> second "ci" is relativ easy to explain, the elidation of the group
> "-tru-" is not so easy, but for this see punct B.
>
> A. The numerals used by folk's mouth are in the shorted form ( I

wonder

> if Alb. has too a such short form for them). Thus we have:
> unSpe ( instead of unsprezece)
> doiSpe ( instead of doisprezece)
> treiSpe
> paiSpe
> cinSpe
> SaiSpe
> SaptiSpe
> optiSpe
> nouãSpe
>
> I must say, I did not read anything about these shorted form and at

the

> first view one should say there are the shorted forms where people
> abandoned ( meanwhile I love this word) the "ten":
> unsprezece > unspre(zece)
> The phnetic change is curious. Why "spre" > Spe (s^pe) ?
> One will assume there is spre > spe (trough sincope of "r"): from

this

> *spe > s^pe, where "s^" is to obtain under the influence of the "e";
> this change appears a bit unusual though.
>
> That should be one hypothesis.The second one should be that we do

not

> have here to count with the preposition "spre" but with the

prep "pe"

> (on).In this case appears the question : where from is the "s"

there? In

> a construct as "unpezece" there should be no explanation for

the "s".An

> opinion about this should be that the counting system here was "one

and

> on ten" " unu Si pe zece":
>
> unu-Si-pe-(zece) > unSipe > unSpe ( the "i" was absorbed in the "i"

of

> "s^")
>
> B. The reduction of "tru" arrise an another problem with it. As

there is

> to see, the composition in the shorted manner but in the literary

one

> too has there an "i" which I suppose is considered to be analogical

by

> "four", "six", "seven" and "eight", forms "modeled" after "two" ,
> "three" and "five"
> The nominativ forms are unu, doi, trei, patru, cinci, sase, sapte,

opt,

> nouã. The forms for 12, 13, 15, appears to be the forms which made

to

> appear this parasitar "i":
> 12= doi-spre-zece / doi-S-pe
> 13= trei-spre-zece / trei-S-pe
> 15= cin(ci)-spre-zece /cin(ci)-S-pe
> If one want to let the explanation be trough analogy, then we can
> explain the aparition of "i" in the 14,16,17,18 trough influence of
> 12,13,15.
> These won't explain tough the reduction of "patru" to "pai".
>
> My questions here are:
> -in fact how can be explained this reduction of "patru" to "pai"?
> -why is this countig system considered a Slavic one since the Alb.
> presents the same way to count?
>
> If I am not too wrong in South Slavic there is too a curious

reduction

> of some numbers from 11-19: for instance there should be "adin-na-

cat"

> ehre "c"="ts" but "dva-cat", "tri-cat", "c^etr-na-cat" etc. ( for

the

> slavic examples I just qouted from memory, thus please verify these
> exemples if there are some doubts regarding their correct form)
>
> Alex

************
The Albanian forms of numbers from 11-20 are:
Njëmbëdhjetë 'eleven' (standard form) - (g.) nimdhetë/(t.) njëmdhjetë
(speaken forms)
Dymbëdhjetë -twelve (dymdhjetë/dymdhetë)
Trembëdhjetë - thirteen (tremdhetë/tremdhjetë)
Katërmbëdhjetë - fourteen (katërmdhetë/katërmdhjetë)
Pesëmbëdhjetë - fifteen (pesëmdhetë/pesëmdhjetë)
Gjashtëmbëdhjetë - sixteen (gjashtëmdhetë/gjashtëmdhjetë)
Shtatëmbëdhjetë - seventeen (shtatëmdhetë/shtatëmdhjetë)
Tetëmbëdhjetë - eighteen (tetëmdheetë/tetëmdhjetë)
Nëntëmbëdhjetë - nineteen (nanëmdhetë/nanëmdhjetë)
I think that in this case, the meaning of the preposition <mbë-/mbi->
is 'over, on'.

South-Slavic forms are:
Jedanaest < jedan na deset 'eleven'
Dvanaest 'twelve'
Trinaest 'thirteen'
Ceternaest 'fourteen'
Petnaest 'fifteen'
šesnaest 'sixteen'
Sedamnaest 'seventeen'
Osamnaest 'eighteen'
Devetnaest 'ninteen'.

As you see, as in Romanian, as in Albanian, as in Slavic languages we
have the tendency of the reduction of the constituent elements,
probably due to the principle of economization, especially when
people deal with something known.

Any idea about loans, when we deal with numbers, for me is very
strange.

Konushevci