From: Peťus Hrubiš
Message: 34685
Date: 2004-10-15
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "petusek" <petusek@...> wrote:Well, I doubt. I might accept pre-PIE **pW- > PIE *kW- (via dissimilation?), as one can hardly explain satem forms - just like in Slavic languages (Cz c^tyr^i "4", c^tver^ice "a group of 4", Ru c^etyre "4" and sim.), is there any analogy of a bilabial pW > c^ in any language? Or, do you think Germanic underwent a different evolution? Like pre-PIE **pW > Pre-Germanic > *p- as opposed to the rest of IE? I might have poor imagination...or is the /e/ so strong a palatalizing agent that it would make pWe- > c^e- ?
> > Vaclav Blazek (Numerals) offers a weird solution to some numerals
> in some of the World's languages.
> >
> > He suggests that some of the strange phonetic irregularities in
> numerals may be due to an analogy, alliteration and sandhi that take
> place when numbers are counted in a set (e.g. from 1 to 10 or sim.)
> We have all encountered alliterative and analogical changes, of
> course. However, here is what Blazek assumes for IE (not that he
> claims it is the only correct explanation, in fact, he asks):
> >
> > *oy- *dwoH1 *tri-*kWe *dur- *pen(gh?)- *kWe = "1", "2", "3"
> plus, "4", "5" plus >> *oy- dwoH1 *tri- *kWetur- *penkWe (???)
> >
> > /t/ in *kWetur- would be due to analogy after *tri-
> >
> > External parallels supporting the reconstruction *dur-, *dwor- etc.
> would be in Altaic *to:r-/*tu:r (Starostin).
> >
> > Does anybody know of analogies in other language groups? Any
> supporting or disagreeing ideas?
>
> It's appealing to analyse *kWetwor as actually being *pWetwor, whence
> Germanic f-, and related to the Afro-Asiatic forms - see e.g.Pwetusekw
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/6673 or
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14952 .
>
> Sanskrit _cátasras_ 'four (f.) argues against there being a *twer
> root.