Re: Finnish KASKA

It seems to me that most of the world's numbering systems are built on body
counting.

One concept that comes up often is *na, 'nose', for 'one'.

*dwo(:)- is, I think, derivable from *t?so, 'arm'; OK for 'two' but not very
connectible with 'one'.

If one looks at Egyptian, where it is preserved most clearly, it looks like
numerals were once appended with -*w(a) to indicate 'number'.

So, on *dwo:u-, the bottom like for me is I think the final -*u is this
'number'-element miraculously surviving. This has applications for *ok^to:u-
as well. No dual!


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA


>
> 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).
>
> =============
>
> PIE *dwô is from *t_?_m?
> like in Hebrew te?omi "twin".
> This word is old.
> It combines with k_? "one"
> to form the word "three"
> ka?-t_?om?
> hence PU *ka?lom "three"
> Hungarian is long ha:rom
> and Basque hiru "three"
> might be here too.
> No -m- kept !!
>
> Dwô is not a dual.
>
> Arnaud
>
> =====================
>
>
>