Re: *ka/unt- etc, new conquests, a whole bundle of them

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

>
> > > > Suppose PIE had 'dwó do komt', 'trí do komt' vel sim. (cf. the
> > > > Lat. -gint-, Gk. -kont- for decades), then by false division
> > > >*dé-komt- "ten". Voilà!
> > > >
> > > Great, but did *komt- mean "bundle of fingers" or "bundle of
> > > hands" or something else?
> >
> > More like "handful".
> >
> > > Why not just "hand", and then go along with Pokorny in making
> > > *dek^mt- a reduced form of *dwe/dwo k^mt (or *k^omt)?
> >
> > I like my proposal better. The *kom-t- thing means "ten" in Volga-
> > Finnic and "hundred" and "decade" in IE. Nowhere does it mean
> > "five". Obviously it must mean "group" (of something) in in a
> > field where decadic numbers were preferred. And that was in the
> > field of military venture / hunting.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65159
>
> > Torsten
>
> For meanings closer to "five", Uralic has *kämme- "palm".
>
> But, do you have evidence anywhere for decadic organization in
> hunting groups?

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65159
'The tribe could be of dual (left and right "wings") or triple (left and right wings plus a center), and was militarily organized by the decimal structure (i.e., units of thousands, hundred, and tens with a hierarchy of leaders) (Taskin 1989)'

Ie. the tribe as such was thus organized
This is second time I refer you to that quote. Please read my references before you answer.

> Or for decadic organization in Uralic anywhere?

No, and?

> Or anything suggesting that *kümmen ever had a cluster with /t/,

No, and?

> or alternately, a morphological explanation for the /t/ elsewhere?

I'm not sure the one I gave holds the whole way through, as Andrew pointed out.

> I still think you're more or less indiscriminately clumping
> together words that have a dorsal + vowel + nasal + /t/
> structure... used to be /nt/, but now you're even allowing for
> either of /m/ or /n/, and for lack of /t/.

No, I tentatively broke up the root to see if that would explain part of the corpus.

> Needs way too many assumptions about substrates doing this or that.

Whatever.

> Don't get me wrong, this is all interesting, and some of these
> words might well be related after all, but the evidence we have is
> not sufficient for conclusions AFAICT.

I agree.


Torsten