From: andythewiros
Message: 65247
Date: 2009-10-15
>I don't have that. I googled Pokorny and downloaded (extracted) a file named "the_whole_dang_file" which is Pokorny partially translated, but I can't be sure it really is the _whole_ file, nor how old it is or whether there are any updates or anything.
> > > That's where my OCR'ed paper Pokorny has them too.
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what 'OCR'ed' means --?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition
> I use the FineReader OCR on my library loans
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBYY
> which means I got them stored and can search terms in them. Gives me an edge in discussions ;-)
>Because of what Doug Kilday said about <kümmen>? You're right that if *dek^mt really meant 'two hands' originally and was used for the derived concept 'ten', then one should find a *k^mt-/k^omt-/k^emt- meaning 'five' somewhere. You and Doug are more qualified than I to determine whether <kümmen> fits that bill. If only we could uncover an ancient book somewhere called "The Story of Ten and Five and the Other Numbers".
>
> > > > > And the answer to Andrew's question about the "ten" word:
> > > > >
> > > > > Russian (and other Slavic languages, AFAIK) has
> > > > > dvenadtsat', trinadtsat' etc lit.
> > > > > "two on ten", "three on ten" etc meaning
> > > > > "twelve", "thirteen" etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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".
>
> I take that back.
>In this meaning, perhaps *kom-t- is related to *k(^)om "with"? ("together with" > "together" > "collection"). Not that it adds any support to the idea of it being related to 'hand', though I'm sure one could still connect the idea of "with" to the idea of "hand" (see my previous posting).
> > 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
> >
> > Fine, I understand and respect your proposal, but I like the idea
> > of 'ten' coming from simple always available objects that virtually
> > always have ten appendages, the hands.
>
> And I prefer to have *kom-t- mean "collection" vel sim., since it seems to means collections of different sizes.
>I have experienced problems with my e-mail and have lost several pages of e-mails, including the one in which *kom-t-ú- was discussed (I believe it was discussed mainly by Doug Kilday?).
>
> > If the origin of 'ten' is to remain moot, I will remain partial to
> > the idea of it being related to Gmc 'hand'.
>
> I won't object to Gmc "hand" being from some loaned *kom-t-ú-.
>a) the semantics between 'foot' and the various other concepts like 'grassy meadow' are very far removed;
> > And as far as the origin of 'hand', I suspect there is no further
> > etymology than the meaning 'hand' --
>
> > isn't there no further etymology than the meaning 'foot' for
> > *pe(:)d-/po(:)d- or
>
> Wrong
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/39804
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59452
> FWIW
>Whatever.
> > the meaning 'eye' for *okW- or the meaning 'ear' for *aus-?
>
> Possibly.
>
> > > > Maybe Gmc 'hand' was originally a consonant stem, and then
> > > > became an u-stem because of the accusative endings -um and
> > > >-uns, like Gothic <fo:tus>?
> > >
> > > Note the section names
> > > 'Die maskulinen u-Stämme mit grammatischem Wechsel'
> > > and
> > > 'U-stämmige Adjektiva mit grammatischem Wechsel'
> > > in
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62159
> > > That list contains several I know to be loans (eg. plough) and I
> > > suspect they all are, which would mean that Proto-Proto-Germanic
> > > had no mobile-accent nouns (but did have mobile-accent verbs).
> > > One might therefore suspect the -ú- to be not IE, and further an
> > > adjective-forming suffix in the donor language, so that *hanðu-
> > > (< **kantú-) was originally an adjective to **kant-.
> > >
> > >
> > I'm really surprised that so basic a notion as 'hand' would have to
> > be borrowed from elsewhere, like FU.
>
> Slang. Most languages have colloquial terms for parts of the body. And Russian (and some other Slavic languages) don't even have separate terms for "arm"/"hand" or "leg"/"foot".
>
> > The other u-stem nouns and adjectives, I've seen IE etymologies forWell, if I'm not mistaken, *ferþu- etc. is found in Germanic, Celtic, Italic, and its base *per- is found in these and in Indo-Iranian and Greek; *þursu- etc. is found in Germanic, Italic, and Indo-Iranian; *xaþu- etc. is found in Germanic and Indo-Iranian and I believe Celtic; and *laGu- is found in Germanic, Italic, Greek, Celtic, and Balto-Slavic. Is that really areally restricted?
> > most of them, I'm pretty sure (at least for *ferþ/ðu/furðu,
> > *grunþu/ðu, *xaþu/xaðu, *xunxru/xunGru, *laGu, *þursu/zu,
> > *þranxu/Gu). But always remember my opinions are mostly
> > comparatively uninformed.
>
> Aren't they areally restricted? And why don't they ablaut with the stress, when Gmc verbs do?