From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 54899
Date: 2008-03-09
>Piotr said:That's not really a problem. The feminine ending -i:
>>Well, most etymologists do support a connection between Skt.
>>sahásra-/Av. hazaNra- and Lat. mi:lle, though it's obvious that the
>>relationship is indirect. The Indo-Iranian numeral is a true compound
>>(*sm.-g^Heslo-), whereas the Latin one seems to be a univerbated phrase
>>(*smih2 g^H(e)slih2 > *(s)mi:ksli > mi:lle; the geminate is regular
>>after a long vowel). The main objection is the non-attestation of any
>>reflexes of *smih2 in Italic, but as the form must have existed in
>>pre-Italic IE, its loss as a free form is quite irrelevant. The
>>prototype of <mi:lle> was probably already opaque to speakers of
>>Proto-Italic. *g^Heslo- etc. may be related to *g^Héso:r/*g^Hesr- 'hand'
>>("a large handful"?)
>
>Sihler has a good discussion of this (New Comparative Grammar section 396).
>He says there are two theories, with and without the (e) in Piotr's version.
>Without the (e) he suggests we would get *smi:ksli as above, but then a
>single l as in te:la from *teksla (note the short e, whereas (sm)i:ksli has
>a long i, so you may be right, Piotr)
>With the (e), he suggests we would get *mi: he:li, which gives mi:le, from
>which we get the plural mi:lia. The double -ll- in the singular is a
>problem for this theory.
>
>A problem for both theories is the plural form, which is neuter. The
>starting phrase for both forms involves a feminine noun.