From: dgkilday57
Message: 71765
Date: 2014-07-30
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <josimo70@...> wrote:1) PIE *swek^s. How to explain the anomalies and different forms? Why *swek^s /*sek^s/ *wek^s/*k^swek^s/*uk^s? Why Sanskrit s.as., instead of expected *saks.- or *svaks, ? What is it relationship to Semitic shish-? *swek^s- > *sek^s after influence of *septm sounds plausible.[...]
DGK: It is difficult to discuss PIE numerals in isolation. In order to address the anlaut-variation in 'six', I must first examine 'three' and 'four'. Please excuse the verbosity. Brevity is not my strong suit.
[...]
As a result there is no need to posit two (or more) originally distinct forms of 'six' in PIE as E.R. Luján Martínez did (Los numerales indoeuropeos 315-6, 1996). Nor is there any reason to assume that PIE borrowed this numeral from Semitic or any other source. Its primary indeclinability suggests that 'six' was originally not an adjective or noun in apposition with the units counted, but an adverbial expression. This can be formally identified with the endingless locative of a prefixed root-noun *swe-k^os- 'one's own cut, solitary separation', thus *swék^s 'in solitary separation (from a handful), with one in addition (to a handful)'. The PIE root is *k^es- 'to cut, cut off, separate'. (This in my opinion has been conflated with a different root *k^h2es- > *k^as- 'to lack, be wanting' in IEW 586. The latter also underlies *k^as-(no-) 'gray, ashen, hoary' in IEW 533, originally 'lacking pigment' when used as a chromic term.) Presumably the gesture for 'six' was like our own, one hand with all fingers outstretched, the other with only one out. Literally *swék^s would have applied only to the latter hand with one separate finger showing, but the adverb could easily have spread to cover the whole gesture, which in turn was appropriate whenever six of anything were indicated.
=====
DGK bis: Michiel de Vaan's review of Rainer Lipp's book _Die indogermanischen und einzelsprachlichen Palatale im Indoiranischen_ (2 vols., Heidelberg 2009), published in Kratylos 56:1-14, 2011, appeared recently on academia.edu. Lipp clearly sides with Meillet and others in assuming only two original dorsal series, with [k] and [k^] in complementary distribution in Late PIE, but becoming phonemic in the satem languages due to paradigmatic reshuffling. De Vaan finds this problematic, as I do. Lipp is compelled to explain eight instances of PIE *k^ in non-palatalizing environments. Two of these are the numerals 'six' and 'eight'.
It turns out that my proposal in the post cited above (from 3 Dec 2013) is formally identical to what Lipp already suggested as the origin of 'six'. I quote from de Vaan's review, p. 5:
"Two new etymologies are offered at the end of this section. For PIE *suek's 'six', L. proposes *sué-k's, a locative of a determinative compound 'gesonderter/eigener Abschnitt', hence 'im eigenen Abschnitt, in gesonderter Kerbe', based on the frequent depiction of 'six' as a new notch in counting, compare Roman VI. The palatovelar would be analogical from the full grade *k'es-. This etymology seems adventurous at best."
Obviously, since I proposed essentially the same etymology independently, I do not consider it "adventurous at best". It has the considerable advantage of explaining the indeclinability of 'six' as an adverbial expression, using attested PIE roots and morphology. If one believes in three dorsal series (as I do, unless someone can bring forward a detailed, non-hokey resolution of the issues raised by only two series, something which Meillet and others have had over a century to produce), then the business about the analogical palatovelar is superfluous. I disagree with Lipp's exposition on another detail as well.
Taking 'Abschnitt, Kerbe, cut, notch' in the concrete sense in connection with *k^es- is unnecessary and inappropriate when dealing with the origin of numerals. It implies that speakers already had some kind of permanent bookkeeping method, such as tally sticks, before numerals above 'five' were named. Moreover, Roman numerals were adapted with minor changes from Etruscan numerals, so they did not originate with IE-speakers. The Etruscan V is probably a simplified logogram for the spread hand with five fingers showing, the X a logogram for two such hands with heels together. (It has been suggested that X originated as an abbreviation for Etr. _sar_ 'ten', but the alphabet which denoted /s/ by X was restricted in space to the region between Caere and Veii, and in time to the 6th c. BCE plus a few years on either side. Otherwise, South Etruscans used sigma (essentially S) to denote /s/ from the earliest inscriptions ca. 700 BCE until the demise of the language, and North Etruscans used san (resembling M or III). Thus it is not at all plausible that X for 'ten' began as such an abbreviation.) The symbol VI for 'six' is best understood as a composite logogram representing the common gesture for 'six', one spread hand plus one outstretched finger on the other. The significance of *k^es- to the IE numeral 'six' lies in the separation of that one finger from the spread hand, not in a physical cut or notch.