Re: Thalla-tun -- was Comparative Notes on Hurro-Urartian, Northern

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63702
Date: 2009-03-30

--- On Mon, 3/30/09, dubbelax <dubbelax@...> 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.
>
Numbers 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.
Many others have also noted that triliteral roots come from biliteral and tend to form "families".