[tied] Re: IE right & 10

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

> (As for "6", Glen has written a lot about it, already. The

remarkable

> similarity between some Indo-European forms (Old Indic nom-acc-voc

s.a't.,

> instr. s.ad.bhís "6", Lith s^es^i "6") and their Semitic

counterparts

> (Arabic sitt "6", sa:dis "6th", Hebrew s^e:s^) is evident, bud if

we compare

> the IE reconstruction *Ksweks and Semitic *s^idT-, their

incompatibility is

> clear.

*sWek^s (with labialised [s]) offers a better fit. There was a
discussion of *sW at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28416 . The
labialisation could come from the tendency of s^ to be labialised.

Richard.