0

There is a widespread Eurasiatic theory that puts all these families (except PIE) into one group, the case for common numerals for one and two seems more plausible. I also add Chukchi-Kamchadal family hare as it is considered close to PIE. I do not include word forms which seem not to be related.

Below, đ=dʒ

Compare:

PIE    Korean Tungusic Burushaski Chukchi PAinu PKartvel Mongolian OTurkic
e̯oinom hana   ömen     hen        ənnen   hine
du̯oe̯   dur    đöör                        tuu   đor      đuirim    tuirem "second" 

Modern Tungusic languages  |  Modern Kartvelian languages
Oroqen Manchu Even            Megrel  Svan   Laz
umun   emu    umūn
đūr    đuu̯e   dūr             žir     đor    žur

ADDENDUM

I did not include Uralic here even though it is usually considered related to PIE because the Uralic numeral for two is a cognate with PIE word for a pair (q̆eta̯), and the numeral for one seems to mean "non-paired" and come from the same root.

But if we consider the PIE word for four, q̆etu̯ores, we can analyze it as a compound q̆et-du̯or-es, that is "a pair of twos". Thus the most ancient PIE form of the word for two was possibly du̯or (possibly used with nouns with r/n stem?).

  • 7
    Do you have a set of words showing the same correspondences of segments? Otherwise this is free speculation, and not of much value. – Colin Fine Mar 23 at 22:45
  • @ColinFine what do you mean by segments? – Anixx Mar 23 at 23:08
  • Phonemes, if you will. – Colin Fine Mar 23 at 23:11
  • 5
    Altaic isn't a "widespread" theory. It's somewhat prominent, but widely rejected (hence you go on "but"). Chukchi-Kamchadal is not "considered" anything. It's not widely known (Does that contain Chuckese? I had come to think that one was made up by @Chuck in wiktionary as a honeypot to catch quacks, because I do see the occoasional similarity). None of the compared languages are in your field of expertise. The PIE root for "two" is commonly given as *dwo-, you know that. There is no internal derivation for the -r, but I guess it might be morphemic, *-ros; or were reinterpreted as such – vectory Mar 24 at 6:17
  • 2
    likewise, there is no internal derivation for *oynos or **eoinom**(?), except that *-os is regular. It is missing in Hittite, too, who rather reflects *sem- etc. so I thought *oynos was proto-nuclear or secondary. – vectory Mar 24 at 6:21
9

Definitely not.

Two words only aren't enough to establish any kind of relationship.

The best you can do with it is to use them as seeds for possible sound relations and look of regular sound laws with their help. So for instance, do the sound laws for "two" carry over to the numeral for "ten"? What about other basic words reconstructed with a PIE *d?

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.