Re: [tied] Re: Latin barba in disaccord with Grimm's Law?

On 2006-06-25 19:20, Rick McCallister wrote:

> Is it true that three is related to throng and thorp? I've seen this
> bandied about.
> If this is so, could these be related to various *tr-, *tVr- roots
> meaning "through, beyond, etc"
> If so, then we have
> *sem- "one, whole"
> *dwoi- "two"
> *trei- "many"
> *twor- "more", i.e. intensified form of *trei-?

What kind of intensive formation is this?

> *pen- "hand"

Any independent evidence for such a word with such a meaning? One thing
that troubles me about explanations in which *kWe 'and' is invoked is
that both *kWétwor- and *pénkWe may lose the *e. For example, we have
penkW-ró- in Gmc. *finG(W)raz, and ordinal *penkW-to- with reflexes in
several branches. I wonder if cardinal *penkWe isn't a fossilised _verb_
form (imperative).

Piotr

> then
> *sem- "one, whole"
> *dwoi- "two"
> *trei- "many"
> *kwe-twor- "and more"
> *pen-kwe- "and hand" --emphatic form?