I see kir, kur, kri and it seems like kur has to be explained as kw-, and it is pretty easy to see
----- Original Message -----
From: "H.M. Hubey" <hubeyh@...>
To: <Nostratica@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Nostratica] Cardinal and Ordinal Integers
> I don't get it.
> circle (kirk-ul? <* kirik-ul).
> Then circus (kirk-us <* kirik-us?)
> Then circ-ul-us < (*kirik-ul-us)?
Why *kirik-? The Latin root is simply <circ->. Add diminutive <-(u)l-> and a masculine ending, and you get <circulus> (or the variant <circlus>, also found in Latin). It's a productive way of forming diminutives in Latin. What's your problem with it?
> It seems "circle" is "small something". No?
Yes, originally a small ring, as opposed to a large one, such as a racing course (hence our "circus")
> The root *kir seems to be related to *kwel e.g. *kwer/*kwir. No?
Nope. Latin *kirk- seems somehow related to Gk. kirkos/krikos 'ring' and possibly to Lat. curvus 'bent'. These words cannot be related to *kWel-.
the connection between *kir and *kil, etc. all meaning "round". The root of all these has to be
*kVL where L=liquid. and V=vowel.
Piotr
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-- M. Hubey -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o The only difference between humans and machines is that humans can be created by unskilled labor. Arthur C. Clarke /\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/ http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey