--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "The Egyptian Chronicles" <the_egyptian_chronicles@...> wrote:
>
Sorry, I did not know about the message length limit, so I am repeating it.
Thank you, Ishinan. I think that Lane makes it perfectly clear that t_-l-l is not identical with t_-l-t_. Who would have said that? :-o
Look, I know only too well that etymologizing numerals is a precarious thing and I do it only for fun. Just imagine that three would mean "many", four "even more", six "plenty", seven "abundance", eight "riches", nine "an extention of those riches or just a new number" and ten "a large group". FOR ALL THE ROMANTIC LAYMEN WHO HAPPEN TO READ MY MESSAGE: THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS JUST A BRUTAL HORSEPLAY! As has just been said, almost all the connections of the Semitic numerals with other words would reach some pre-Semitic stage (at least). Anyway, you guys cannot say that I did not warn you :-)
Now back to the more serious, dear Ishinan. When I presented the topic of my doctoral thesis in Prague Uni, it was met with interest. I had collected data about possible ways of development of some 3C roots into 4C ones and vice versa and about certain variations within roots (such as 4C > another 4C). So, I meant the part of my message about simplified doubled roots. There is a plenty of C1-C2-C1-C2/C1-C2-C2 pairs with identical or close meanings. If we accept the idea that some C1-C2-C1 roots can be variants of C1-C2-C1-C2 type, then the variation C1-C2-C1/C1-C2-C2 is quite possible also.
I definitely do not insist on the afore mentioned "t_allatun" solution for "three", for it is a sheer speculation. There may be (or may have been) a t_-l-l root cognate with t_-l-t_ "three", but as we do not know the original meaning of "three", we will hardly ever find it.
Ed