Re: IE right & 10

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Peter:
> > Did they? Can you give me some examples? Not that I object to

it, but

> > I have read recently that, perhaps, FU *ku(u)t(t)i or *kotti "6"

and

> > Sm *mËktut "6" (probably unrelated to each other) both were

formed on

> > the same semantical basis - that "six" equals to "beyond five" (U
> > *kuttE "a back" > MaN Xu:täI "behind"; U *mukA "back" > Selkup

Taz

> > moqoqIt "behind") I am no expert as far as Uralic languages are
> > concerned, but this seems logical to me.
>
> Maybe but I had an idea that /hutH/, which must mean "four"

not "six"

> in Etruscan because of the Ytte:nia-Tetrapolis connection and other
> /hutH/ derivatives suggesting "four", would be related to IE

*kWetwores.

>
> The IE form is clearly just *kWetwor- plus *-es with accent placed

on

> the second syllable via former QAR of Mid IE. This observation

yields

> *kWatWan with final *-n that later becomes *-r by the Heteroclitic

rule

> before Syncope. This *-n is simply functioning here as a

singulative

> in opposition to *kWatWa-ha "eight" > eLIE *aktwa: > *okto:u and

is the

> same suffix seen in other uncountable words like *wat:an "water" >

*wodr.

>
> So, I feel the urge to reconstruct IndoTyrrhenian *kWatWan so that

it

> nicely deteriorates to Tyrrhenian *xota without fuss. Now, if

*kWatWan

> can be established as an old word for "four", then a relationship

with

> Uralic *kutte is tempting although we'd have to explain the

deviance

> of the semantics.

Would that be *kWat + *-war/*-wan, with that well-known IE suffix?

Torsten