From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54948
Date: 2008-03-10
> 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
> >
> > ======================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>