Re: Mille (thousand)

PIE *ka(:)(H)I- does not mean 'one'; one might make the likelier assumption
that it means 'bad' on the basis of Lith. <kéikti>, 'curse'; probably
related to *ka(:)d-, 'hurt'.

Hebrew t°?om-i "twin"? where do you get off 'emending' Hebrew?

The Hebrew root produces words meaning 'harmony', 'match'. I think it would
be obvious to most linguists that the basal meaning seems to be 'similar'
not 'one'.

You have illustrated the rankest amateurism by attempting to abstract the
meaning that suits your argument without cursorily researching the questions
at all.

Do not dare to ever pronounce to me on methodology again.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: Mille (thousand)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> There is no *ka? meaning 'one' or *t?_m? meaning 'two',
>
> or anything derived from it,
>
> in any language anywhere at any time.
>
> Patrick
>
> =======================
>
> Issueing a big pronouncement again ?
>
> Latin : cae-lebs "alone-lifer"
> from *ka?(i)
> Be it true Latin or not,
> it has the right morpheme.
>
> Hebrew t°?om-i "twin"
> Twins go by two, right ?
> from
> *ta?om? "two".
> with final stress on nisbe -i-
>
> Big pronouncement kaputt.
>
> Arnaud
>
> =============
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>