In:In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology
Edited by John D. Bengtson
[Not in series 145] 2008
► pp. 213–221
Some thoughts on the Proto-Indo-European cardinal numbers
Published online: 3 December 2008
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.145.18bom
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.145.18bom
This paper takes a fresh look at the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European cardinal numbers. Evidence is presented that the earliest form of the number “two” was (in traditional reconstruction) *do- and that the form usually given in the standard handbooks, namely, *duwō/*dwō, was a later borrowing, probably from Northwest Caucasian. Moreover, the earliest form of the number “four” was *Hokh-tho-. It is preserved in the number “eight”, *Hokh-thoH(w), which is a later dual form meaning “two fours”. The forms *meyu- “four”, found in the Anatolian branch, and *kwhéth-wor- “four”, found in the non-Anatolian daughter languages, are both later innovations. Finally, the number “ten”, de-kmo t-, is taken to be an old compound meaning “two hands”, as often suggested in the literature.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Overmann, Karenleigh A.
Overmann, Karenleigh A.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
