Re: Finnish KASKA

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 53857
Date: 2008-02-21

----- Original Message -----
From: "etherman23" <etherman23@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:02 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
> I consider Manaster Ramer a friend.
>
> We had some discussions on his article, and a few of you may be
interested
> in some thoughts of my own on the subject:
>
>
> http://geocities.com/proto-language/critique-PKNumerals.htm

Interesting. At one point you mention deriving *dwo: from a dual of an
unattested **dwo meaning one. The suggestion was made to indicate an
absurdity and you weren't seriously proposing it. However, what if
this suggestion is correct? Of course it would be hard to prove
without an attested form of **dwo for one. But perhaps such an
attestation exists. Not in PIE, but in Etruscan. The Etruscan number
one is tHu(n).


***

Sorry, but I am not aware pf thu(n), 'one'.

Where does this come from?


Patrick