The Great Proto-Indo-European Thread's Sequel

[WeepingElf]

And PIE *k^wek^wlos has an impeccable inner-IE etymology; it is formed from root *k^wel- 'to turn' which appears to have cognates in other Mitian languages.

Unless it's a Wanderwort, as such a technical innovation would suggest.

But what if the PIE speakers invented the wheel? PIE was spoken in the time when the wheel was invented, and some of the earliest wheels were found at Yamnaya sites.

[Talskubilos]

And PIE *k^wek^wlos has an impeccable inner-IE etymology; it is formed from root *k^wel- 'to turn' which appears to have cognates in other Mitian languages.

Unless it's a Wanderwort, as such a technical innovation would suggest.

But what if the PIE speakers invented the wheel? PIE was spoken in the time when the wheel was invented, and some of the earliest wheels were found at Yamnaya sites.

Sure, it's likely the wheel was invented there, but it doesn't necessarily mean these people spoke PIE.

[WeepingElf]

Unless it's a Wanderwort, as such a technical innovation would suggest.

But what if the PIE speakers invented the wheel? PIE was spoken in the time when the wheel was invented, and some of the earliest wheels were found at Yamnaya sites.

Sure, it's likely the wheel was invented there, but it doesn't necessarily mean these people spoke PIE.

It is true that we can't know for sure because genes and uninscribed archeological objects don't tell us anything about languages, but they tell us that there was a major migration wave out of the Yamnaya culture that came to dominate Europe, and that makes it very likely that this migration spread IE over Europe, and the Yamnaya people spoke PIE.

[alice]

I do so love when Talskubilos (né Octaviano) shows up again

What, that's the legendary Octaviano? At last, someone to back up my theories of Proto-Vasco-Caucasian and its influence on PIE and Uralic, which I've so far been terrified to post here for fear of ridicule!

[WeepingElf]

I do so love when Talskubilos (né Octaviano) shows up again

What, that's the legendary Octaviano? At last, someone to back up my theories of Proto-Vasco-Caucasian and its influence on PIE and Uralic, which I've so far been terrified to post here for fear of ridicule!

Yes, it's him.

[Travis B.]

Oh brother, not Octaviano again...

[bradrn]

At last, someone to back up my theories of Proto-Vasco-Caucasian and its influence on PIE and Uralic, which I've so far been terrified to post here for fear of ridicule!

Post away, O heir of Nyland!

[Talskubilos]

I do so love when Talskubilos (né Octaviano) shows up again

What, that's the legendary Octaviano? At last, someone to back up my theories of Proto-Vasco-Caucasian and its influence on PIE and Uralic, which I've so far been terrified to post here for fear of ridicule!

I no longer support the Vasco-Caucasian theory, at least in its original form, coined by Bengtson.

[Talskubilos]

It is true that we can't know for sure because genes and uninscribed archeological objects don't tell us anything about languages, but they tell us that there was a major migration wave out of the Yamnaya culture that came to dominate Europe, and that makes it very likely that this migration spread IE over Europe, and the Yamnaya people spoke PIE.

While it's true these people were the vector of a cultural package which included horses and wheeled vehicles, it doesn't necessarily mean they spoke PIE, although they had a huge impact on other European cultures.

[Talskubilos]

Oh brother, not Octaviano again...

My name here is Talskubilos.

[Travis B.]

Oh brother, not Octaviano again...

My name here is Talskubilos.

Yeah, Octaviano.

[Richard W]

Remember who's supposed to have spoken the languages ancestral to the Indo-European family: nomads of the Eurasian steppe. They already have the concept of counting because the number of their flock is important to their social status (hence Latin pecūnia "money, wealth" and English fee from pecū "cattle"), they don't need it introduced to them from the Caucasus or, even less plausibly, the Levant.

Entire systems of numerals can be replaced. The Chinese numbers have been spectacularly successful, and it is by no means clear that they go back to Sino-Tibetan. European number systems have also spread to non-Indo-European languages. It also seems that they were once less stable than they now seem to be. Few of the language phyla have reconstructible numerals.

[Travis B.]

Entire systems of numerals can be replaced. The Chinese numbers have been spectacularly successful, and it is by no means clear that they go back to Sino-Tibetan. European number systems have also spread to non-Indo-European languages. It also seems that they were once less stable than they now seem to be. Few of the language phyla have reconstructible numerals.

I have seen it speculated that nine is derived from the same IE root as new, as in the 'new' number.

[Talskubilos]

Entire systems of numerals can be replaced. The Chinese numbers have been spectacularly successful, and it is by no means clear that they go back to Sino-Tibetan. European number systems have also spread to non-Indo-European languages. It also seems that they were once less stable than they now seem to be. Few of the language phyla have reconstructible numerals.

I have seen it speculated that ]i]nine[/i] is derived from the same IE root as new, as in the 'new' number.

Yes, it's possibly, but perhaps is a folk etymology.
EDITED: In the paper mentioned above, Blažek suggested it could mean 'lack of', relating it to Gothic inu(h) 'without'.

[Talskubilos]

Oh brother, not Octaviano again...

My name here is Talskubilos.

Yeah, Octaviano.

[bradrn]

(If you say the words "folk etymology" I will scream.)

I have seen it speculated that ]i]nine[/i] is derived from the same IE root as new, as in the 'new' number.

Yes, it's possibly, but perhaps is a folk etymology.

Oh dear.

[zompist]

Entire systems of numerals can be replaced. The Chinese numbers have been spectacularly successful, and it is by no means clear that they go back to Sino-Tibetan. European number systems have also spread to non-Indo-European languages. It also seems that they were once less stable than they now seem to be. Few of the language phyla have reconstructible numerals.

This isn't wrong, but it has to be taken with a good deal of salt. E.g. here's a few number sets which show clear borrowings.

Yameo: pwitĕ́r narámue9 kiŋsắ tšiúskō piški sókta kantšis pú’sa ískō tšuŋga
Cocama: huepe mucuica mutsapɨƚrɨca iruaca pichca socta cansi pusa iscun chunga
Shipibo: huestiora rabé quimisha chosco píchica socota canchis posaca íscon chonca
Thaayorre: thon kuth pin por yuur chich chep eet naan ten
Pitjantjatjara: kutju kutjara maṉkurpa [2]-[2] / puupala paipa tjikitji tjapanpa aiti nainpa tiinpa
Nandi: akenge aeŋg somok aŋgwan mut i•llo tisap sisiit sokol taman
Kuvi: rōṇì riṇḍi tīni sāri pāsa sō sāta āṭa nō dos

In each of these cases the borrowings only begin partway down the list. '1' and '2' are highly resistant to borrowing.

(The first three sets show borrowings from Quechua. The next two have 6-10 from English. Nandi is Nilo-Saharan but seems to have borrowed the higher numbers from Cushitic. Kuvi is Dravidian and borrowed 3-10 from Indic.)

(There are weirder cases— e.g. Pacahuara borrowed only the number 3.)

Japanese and Korean borrowed the Chinese numbers but also kept their own.

I'd contest the idea that numbers are hard to reconstruct. Bantu, Austonesian, Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Algonquian, Mayan all seem pretty solid.

Sino-Tibetanists happily reconstruct the numbers. I suppose Classical Tibetan *drug , Sunwar ruku, and Written Burmese k’rok could be from Middle Chinese *ljuwk, but they're explained better by proto-Sino-Tibetan *t-r’uk.

From my numbers list, I'd suggest that the notable fact is not how often numbers are borrowed, but how little. The above sets are the exception, not the rule. Historically, people don't throw out their number sets when they're conquered.

Almost every family can generate words for the small numbers, and it doesn't take a lot of technological sophistication to get a full set to 10 or 20. This is sometimes hidden in old grammars or wordlists because European grammarians didn't realize that numbers might be derived forms. (It's like thinking that because "twenty-one" is derived, English doesn't have numbers past 20.)

[Travis B.]

And about deriving numbers, it is quite common to derive 6, 7, 8, and 9 from 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, and 5+4.

[Travis B.]

Middle Chinese *ljuwk

On a totally unrelated note, I am always amused by how almost every word in MC contains a <j> in its onset (despite there being no evidence of a palatal glide in most cases in reconstructed PTB/PST).

[bradrn]

Middle Chinese *ljuwk

On a totally unrelated note, I am always amused by how almost every word in MC contains a <j> in its onset (despite there being no evidence of a palatal glide in most cases in reconstructed PTB/PST).

As I recall (possibly wrongly), MC syllables are reconstructed in two classes, and the one class is conventionally written as palatalised. That wasn’t necessarily how they were pronounced though.