tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post3594510028486984542..comments2023-09-24T05:45:23.811-05:00Comments on Paleoglot: "Mid Indo-European", Semitic and Neolithic numeralsGlen Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-66039603877531851382011-12-02T21:03:39.455-06:002011-12-02T21:03:39.455-06:00Carsten: "What to do with *weks which is give...<b>Carsten: "What to do with *weks which is given by Armenian, *ksek's which is given by Slavic languages and *kswek's whichi is given by Avesta?"</b><br /><br />One thing we don't do is put these outliers on a pedestal and ignore all the rest of the data motivating <b>*sweks</b>. It's about whether you're seeing the forest or only the trees. Numerals are very prone Glen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-23243401946232044862011-12-02T15:37:48.072-06:002011-12-02T15:37:48.072-06:00By the way, in Proto-Semitic there was a form *šiš...By the way, in Proto-Semitic there was a form *šišš-, beside *šidt-. If we consider *kswek's to be the original form, then the match -š- ~ -ks- is almost perfect.<br /><br />Then, -w- may be just an artifact from the preceding *penkwe. Digits > 4 don't have ablauts and are indeclinable, so that means they were mostly used for counting in their order: 1,2,3,4,5, while trading and that&#Carstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10355738408721312885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-76861932328412149322011-12-02T14:17:49.768-06:002011-12-02T14:17:49.768-06:00What to do with *weks which is given by Armenian, ...What to do with *weks which is given by Armenian, *ksek's which is given by Slavic languages and *kswek's whichi is given by Avesta?<br /><br />It looks like the original form was *kswek's, with the later ks : ks -> s : ks in most dialects.Carstenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10355738408721312885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-34560879730192145652007-10-10T20:46:00.000-05:002007-10-10T20:46:00.000-05:00I knew someone was going to bring this up, but if ...I knew someone was going to bring this up, but if I tried to cover every issue here, I'd have an article two miles long :)<BR/><BR/>In my theory of Pre-IE, the original MIE phonetic realization of <B>*h1</B>, <B>*h2</B> and <B>*h3</B> was respectively /ʔ/, /x/ and /xʷ/. (My reasons for this relate to "Vowel Centralization" in early IndoAegean circa 8000 BCE and areal influence with pre-NWC in theGlen Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440249042894225949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7202150793869184289.post-34792101763704564402007-10-10T19:24:00.000-05:002007-10-10T19:24:00.000-05:00The only problem with this theory, that I have, is...The only problem with this theory, that I have, is that I'm quite sure that h2 was in fact a voiced pharyngeal approximant, looking at how the ayin influences vowels in Arabic, I find this a plausible theory. But if this were to be true, there's no clear reason why the Indo-Europeans did not not loan *sabʕatum as *seph2tm or something along those lines.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless the proposal is very Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com