From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63702
Date: 2009-03-30
> Sorry, I did not know about the message length limit, so INumbers came from somewhere and the relationships need to be pursued but at the earliest possible level, which makes the matter even more difficult. As I recall, there are languages where 2 = "many", 5 = "hand", etc.
> 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.
>