Re: Scientist's etymology vs. scientific etymology

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

> --- stlatos <stlatos@...> wrote:

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

> You don't think "all" and "hand" are related in this
> context?

The word for 'hand' needn't be involved just because counting took
place on the fingers of the hand.

> > 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
> >
> So, again, what's your original meaning for **twores-
> ?

Any original meanings aren't important for this analysis.