Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:
> ...
> > I'm more partial to an explanation including:
>
> >
> > In any event, I think the *kWe in '4, 5' are the
> > result of 'and' in
> > counting 1-10 being analyzed as part of the numbers.
> > If so, no
> > *kWtru+, etc., existed.
> >
> Are you analysing kwetor- (vel sim) as something "and
> many" --i.e. relating **tor- to "thorp, throng, turba"
> and possibly "three"?

No. This is only to explain forms without *kWe in both words. It's
extremely unlikely that *kWe as a syllable appears in only two numbers
and that they are right next to each other in counting order.

> If you do that, I see a problem with 5 *penkwe- (vel
> sim), because the *kwe is now at the end. But do you
> mean "and hand"?

I'd say *pemt+kWe and have no reason to think it meant 'hand'
specifically, instead of 'all, whole, etc.'

The specific number *kWe attached to isn't important, only the form
of the sequence:

*
semps, dwo:v treyes kWe, twores pemt kWe

'one, two and three, four and five