Re: *m for 1st & *t for 2nd person in PIE and Proto-Uralic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
<cdog_squirrel@...> wrote:

> As regards this well-known connection,how did it arise? Is this
> something that dates back to the divergence of PIE and PU, or is this
> the result of deeply intimate borrowing? Certainly such borrowing can
> be seen with Finnish yheksän [sic] and kahdeksan )(something akin to
> "kaksi" (Finnish "two) + dekm (PIE "ten") + san (less))
>
> If that string of logic has any breaks, please point them out.
>
> But would the use of *m- and *t- in PIE and PU be the result of
> borrowing or divergence?

Current thinking is that 8 (and 9) in Finnish is not influenced by
'dekm', for phonetic reasons.

Kahdeksan is explained as;

*kakte > kahde - 2
*e negation (ei - no)
-k modal verbal ending
-sä 3rd person
-n dual ending

The meaning ends up as something like - two not there (2 missing)

similarlily yhdeksän - 9

yksi - 1 ... (one missing)

This is explained in Suomen Sanojen Alkuperä, a 3 volume etymological
dictionary, (unfortunately for most, in Finnish).

Peter P