Re: Mille (thousand)

There is no *ka? meaning 'one' or *t?_m? meaning 'two',

or anything derived from it,

in any language anywhere at any time.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Mille (thousand)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>
> >=======================
>
> Whether short or long, at least the Uralicists have a vowel
> in *kolm-. You don't have one in san ~ gsum ~ három.
> Miguel
> =======================
>
> It's ugly to delete
> my reconstruction and then declare
> that I have no vowel in it.
> This is old-style Soviet way of summarizing
> other people's points of view.
> Delete, distort, then say it's wrong.
>
> I will just restate what I have already said
> a dozen of times
> but it seems it takes time
> for data to reach the brain.
>
> My reconstruction as previously stated
> is ka?-t_?om?
> where ka? is "one"
> and t_?om? "two".
> I don't know which vowel was between
> t and ? (probably unstressed *a)
>
> Uralic is (usually) stressed on first syllable.
> Hence
> ka?-t_?om? > PU *ka:t?om
> ST is oxytone hence
> ka?-t_?om? > ST *ktsom
> Further Tib gsum
> (g is not voiced :
> it contrasts only with h spirant)
> Further Chinese *sam.
>
> Basque ka?t_?om? >
> ha:rom > hiru.
>
> t_?om? > t?w > PIE dw-o.
>
> Note that basque laur "four"
> can be connected with t_?om?
> thru ta?om?-ta?om? >
> ta?o-t?o > lau-r-u
> (m? lost ; t?>r)
>
> Don't be afraid to ask for more.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ======================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>