§ 2. Indo-European numerals.
First we would like to present a table which points the first ten
Proto-Indo-European cardinal numerals in their reconstructed forms:
Proto-Indo-European English
*sems, *oi- one
*duwo / *dwo two
*treyes three
*kwetwores four
*penkwe five
*sweks / *seks six
*sept@m seven
*októ eight
*new@n nine
*dek@mt ten
Here @ + a consonant means the sonant vowel, and ó is a long vowel.
These forms have varieties, but in principle all linguists agree that
cardinal numerals must have sounded quite like this. Now let us look
deeper at each of them and describe the system of the Indo-European
numerals.
The numeral "one" as you can see had in fact two different forms. But it
looks as if it was an adjective in Early Proto-Indo-European, not
exactly a numeral. This adjective practically was not used for counting -
logically, what to count with one thing? That is why the meaning of
this word in Proto-Indo-European, as well as in many ancient IE
languages, was not "one". The word *sems meant "joint", "united" and was
preserved in Latin semel (once) and in some other languages; the same
stem is English same. The stem *oi- evidently meant "single", "the
only", but could rarely exist just as it was, it usually added a suffix:
thus, *oi-k-os existed in Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit eka, Kurdish yak),
*oi-n-os was developed in most European languages (like Greek en, Latin
unus), and some languages had the form derived from *oi-w-os (for
instance, Avestan aeva). This was the matter of a dialect which existed
within the Proto-Indo-European language community, but the stem was the
same.
There is a theory that the count started with "two" in
Proto-Indo-European, and "one" was not considered a cardinal numeral.
This is proven by the fact that the word for "one" is always declined as
a simple adjective, though having only the singular forms. The origin
of the stem *duwo which mutated into *dwo sometimes is unknown. But it
is known that it was declined in dual number only (which is natural),
and its feminine and neuter form was *duwoi / *dwoi. It is easy to trace
the original sounding of this numeral, for even many nowadays languages
did not go far from it: Russian dva, English two, etc.
The next numeral is *treyes, feminine *trisres, neuter *tri. The last
became the most widespread within the Indo-European family, though the
original form with -s exists in Lithuanian trys, Romance languages
(tres, trois) and existed in Classical Greek. For some reason I do not
know this particularly numeral became the most stable among all the ten
ones, and the form sounding somehow like tri exists practically in every
Indo-European tongue.
This cannot be said about *kwetwores, which was too complicated in
comparison with *tri. But the structure of it can be recognized
everywhere according to what the Indo-European *kw turns into in each
language (Latin quattuor, but Oscan petir). Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in
their book "Indo-European and Indo-Europeans" state that the count in
the Proto-IE language was quaternary (in fours), not decimal (in tens),
so the cycle ended in 4. The next one represented the next cycle:
It was *penkwe which probably meant "5 fingers" on the hand. Compare the
Slavic word pyad' meaning the hand, and pyat' meaning five. The word
*penkwe and all numerals after it were not declined.
The origin of *sweks (the dialectal form *seks) is again unknown, and
the next one - *sept@m - is believed to have been borrowed from Semitic
on a very early stage of the PIE language. It was present in all
dialects, so at the moment it was borrowed the Proto-language was nor
divided into dialects yet. Compare the Proto-Semitic *š-b-tu with the
PIE form - here is another proof for the Asiatic homeland of
Indo-Europeans.
The word *októ is strange enough to be discussed for ages already by
linguists. Scientists noticed that in fact this word is dual in number,
so meaning two things. A version says it denoted two furrows made by the
plough, another believes that is meant "two fours" so denoting the end
of the second quaternary cycle. Maybe it was also borrowed from
somewhere, but it was too far away to be sure.
The second version is witnessed by the numeral *new@n, probably a
cognate to the stem *newo- (see the analysis) meaning new - the new
cycle after "eight" is a possible meaning. Or it is just a coincidence.
And finally the word *dek@mt, with the possible meaning "two hands", if
it is composed of *dwe + *k@mt (the latter meaning "a hand", cognate to
Gothic handus).
At first the majority of numerals were just nouns and behaved like nouns
in the sentence. But later as many of them lost their declension, the
usage also changed and a special part of speech appeared in the
language. But still in all Indo-European tongues they remain nominal
words, and the first four of them are declined, not with the full
paradigm however.
#numbers #nummers #numéros #nanpa #luka_luka #sona_luka