# Four in Indo-European languages



## CyrusSH

It can be said that there were different words for "cold" in proto-Indo-European but I think this thing can't be said about a numeral but there are different words for "four" in some Indo-European languages, what is the reason?

The proto-IE word for "four" has been reconstructed as *kʷetware*, according to _Indo-European Numerals, Page 321_, 
the most ancient form of this number in the Avestan language is *axtuirim*, standing as it does against the cardinal *caθβaro*, it clearly shows proto-IE  _kʷ_>_x_ but it says "Initial _xt-_ is not found in Avestan, nor is _kt_ in Old Indian". Anyway we see _x>c_, _t_>_θ_ and _u_>_β_ sound changes in the Avestan word.


----------



## fdb

IE *kt and *kʷt regularly become xt in Iranian. The x is then lost in initial position. Av. tūiriia- “fourth” and āxtūirīm “four times” are from *kʷetwor- with double-zero grade ablaut.


----------



## ahvalj

This _*kʷt_ is indirectly attested in several other languages, where, in contrast, an epenthetic vowel developed within the cluster, hence the Latin_ quat- _(quattuor - Wiktionary ; quartus - Wiktionary ; quater - Wiktionary), the Greek dialectal _πισ-_ (τέσσαρες - Wiktionary) and perhaps the Slavic dialectal _čьt-_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/četyre - Wiktionary).


----------



## berndf

The Gothic _fidwōr_ points to a pre-Germanic *_pitwōr _or maybe *_petwōr_. What would be the explanation for the _p_?


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> The Gothic _fidwōr_ points to a pre-Germanic *_pitwōr _or maybe *_petwōr_. What would be the explanation for the _p_?


The widespread explanation suggests that this is the result of anticipation of _f<*p_ of "five" during count; in Italic and Celtic, the _kʷ_ of "four" penetrated into "five"; in Slavic and East Baltic the _d_ of "ten" replaced the _n_ of "nine".


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> The widespread explanation suggests that this is the result of anticipation of _f<*p_ of "five" during count; in Italic and Celtic, the _kʷ_ of "four" penetrated into "five"; in Slavic and East Baltic the _d_ of "ten" replaced the _n_ of "nine".



In the same way that *oḱtō > Avestan ašta acquires an initial h- in New Persian hašt, by analogy to *septṃ > Av. hapta, NP. haft.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> IE *kt and *kʷt regularly become xt in Iranian. The x is then lost in initial position. Av. tūiriia- “fourth” and āxtūirīm “four times” are from *kʷetwor- with double-zero grade ablaut.



Could it be changed ultimately to _fal_ in Persian?


----------



## rushalaim

CyrusSH said:


> It can be said that there were different words for "cold" in proto-Indo-European but I think this thing can't be said about a numeral but there are different words for "four" in some Indo-European languages, what is the reason?
> 
> The proto-IE word for "four" has been reconstructed as *kʷetware*, according to _Indo-European Numerals, Page 321_,
> the most ancient form of this number in the Avestan language is *axtuirim*, standing as it does against the cardinal *caθβaro*, it clearly shows proto-IE  _kʷ_>_x_ but it says "Initial _xt-_ is not found in Avestan, nor is _kt_ in Old Indian". Anyway we see _x>c_, _t_>_θ_ and _u_>_β_ sound changes in the Avestan word.


Russian [chetyre] looks like Sanskrit [chetwari]. I think Latin _"quarter"_ is correct of proto IE "*kwetware*". 
For example, Aramaic רבעא _"square"_ of _"four corners" _is Russian [kwadrat].


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Russian [chetyre] looks like Sanskrit [chetwari]. I think Latin _"quarter"_ is correct of proto IE "*kwetware*".
> For example, Aramaic רבעא _"square"_ of _"four corners" _is Russian [kwadrat].


Russian _Квадрат _is ultimately from Latin_ quadrātus_, probably via another European language, like German _Quadrat_. I don't understand what Aramaic has to do with this.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> Russian _Квадрат _is ultimately from Latin_ quadrātus_, probably via another European language, like German _Quadrat_. I don't understand what Aramaic has to do with this.


Aramaic _"square"_ and _"four"_ derived from the common root because four angles are square. Maybe there is similar case in PIE.


----------



## berndf

rushalaim said:


> Aramaic _"square"_ and _"four"_ derived from the common root because four angles are square. Maybe there is similar case in PIE.


I see. Of course. _Quadrātus_ is a ppl. of the verb _quādro_ (_to make square_) and that is certainly derived from the number 4, which is in Latin_ quattuor/quāttuor_.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> The Gothic _fidwōr_ points to a pre-Germanic *_pitwōr _or maybe *_petwōr_. What would be the explanation for the _p_?



For the same reason I asked about Modern Persian _fal_, I read somewhere that it can be related to *_kʷ_>_p_ sound change in Greek, anyway proto-IE *_kʷ_ could be changed to both _xw_ and _f_ in Persian, for example about the Persian word for "glory" there are both _xwarna_ (probably a loanword from Avestan) and _farna_.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> The widespread explanation suggests that this is the result of anticipation of _f<*p_ of "five" during count; in Italic and Celtic, the _kʷ_ of "four" penetrated into "five"; in Slavic and East Baltic the _d_ of "ten" replaced the _n_ of "nine".



And what would be the explanation for kʷ>f in proto-Germanic *fin*f*i from proto-IE *pen*kʷ*e?


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> And what would be the explanation for kʷ>f in proto-Germanic *fin*f*i from proto-IE *pen*kʷ*e?


There are several words where labiovelars have turned into labials, like also in _*wulfaz_ "wolf", _*wulƀī_ "she-wolf" (Middle High German _wülpe_ vs. the regular development in Old Norse _ylgr<*wulǥʷī_), _*ufnaz_ "oven" (vs. the regular Gothic _auhns<*uxʷnaz_). It seems that this occurred sporadically in vicinity of a labial sound: _u, w_ or *_p>f._


----------



## berndf

I don't think that _wolf_ is a valid example. This seems rather to be an example of the typical_ f/b_ instability as you find it in English _have_, Low German _heff_ but High German _habe_. [v] was an allophone of /f/ and /b/ was [β] which let to a merger or near merger of the sounds similar to what happend in Spanish.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I don't think that _wolf_ is a valid example. This seems rather to be an example of the typical_ f/b_ instability as you find it in English _have_, Low German _heff_ but High German _habe_. [v] was an allophone of /f/ and /b/ was [β] which let to a merger or near merger of the sounds similar to what happend in Spanish.


But I meant here the change _*kʷ>f_ in _*u̯l̥kʷos>wulfaz._ The expected outcome should have been _*wulxʷaz_ like in _*perkʷā>*ferxʷō_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ferhwō - Wiktionary).


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> But I meant here the change _*kʷ>f_ in _*u̯l̥kʷos>wulfaz._ The expected outcome should have been _*wulxʷaz_ like in _*perkʷā>*ferxʷō_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ferhwō - Wiktionary).


Ah, ok. I was confused because _f_ is not a labial. But you meant _kʷ>p _in *Pre*-Germanic_._


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> There are several words where labiovelars have turned into labials, like also in _*wulfaz_ "wolf", _*wulƀī_ "she-wolf" (Middle High German _wülpe_ vs. the regular development in Old Norse _ylgr<*wulǥʷī_), _*ufnaz_ "oven" (vs. the regular Gothic _auhns<*uxʷnaz_). It seems that this occurred sporadically in vicinity of a labial sound: _u, w_ or *_p>f._



Yes, I also believe the same thing, so it is wrong to say Persian _gurpak_ is from proto-IE *welp- "wolf" but _gurg_ is from proto-IE *welkʷ- "wolf", do you agree?


----------



## berndf

You are jumping to conclusions. He said the phenomenon happened

In (Pre-) Germanic,
In the vicinity of another labial,
Sporadicly.
You have ignored the first condition and transformed the third into its opposite (i.e. always).


----------



## CyrusSH

English _wolf_ is from proto-IE *_welp-_ or *_welkʷ-_?


----------



## CyrusSH

If you believe there were both proto-IE  *_welkʷ-_ and *_welp-_ for "wolf", what is the problem to say there were both *_kʷetware_ and *_petware_ for "four" or *_penkʷe_ and *_pempe_ for "five"?

For example about the proto-IE word for "four", not only the proto-Germanic word can be from *_petware_ but in Italic languages: Oscan _petora_ and Umbrian _petor_, in the Celtic languages: Welsh _pedwar_ and Cornish _peswar_, in the Hellenic languages: Boeotian _pettares_ and Homeric _pisures_, ...


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> "oven" (vs. the regular Gothic _auhns<*uxʷnaz_). It seems that this occurred sporadically in vicinity of a labial sound: _u, w_ or *_p>f._





ahvalj said:


> But I meant here the change _*kʷ>f_ in _*u̯l̥kʷos>wulfaz._ The expected outcome should have been _*wulxʷaz_ like in _*perkʷā>*ferxʷō_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ferhwō - Wiktionary).



The change _xʷ>f_ in the Germanic language is another issue, I think we see the same change just in Iranian and South Slavic languages.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> If you believe there were both proto-IE *_welkʷ-_ and *_welp-_ for "wolf",


I have said nothing about *_welkʷ-_ or *_welp-. _I said you are jumping to conclusions. Non-regual changes are just that, non-regular. Since Iranian forms of the numeral 4 conform to regular pattern, whatever happened to 4 or 5 or wolf in other languages doesn't matter. If there there had been other developments in play they can't be reconstructed.


----------



## rushalaim

CyrusSH said:


> The change _xʷ>f_ in the Germanic language is another issue, I think we see the same change just in Iranian and South Slavic languages.


Russian doesn't have any "f"-sound at all.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I have said nothing about *_welkʷ-_ or *_welp-. _I said you are jumping to conclusions. Non-regual changes are just that, non-regular. Since Iranian forms of the numeral 4 conform to regular pattern, whatever happened to 4 or 5 or wolf in other languages doesn't matter. If there there had been other developments in play they can't be reconstructed.



I meant the same thing, there were not similar words with the same meanings in the proto-Indo-European, the important point is that the language that you consider as pre-Germanic didn't just relate to Germanic language but also some Iranian, Celtic, Italic, Slavic and Armenian languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

rushalaim said:


> Russian doesn't have any "f"-sound at all.



I said South Slavic, like proto-Slavic *_xvala_ > _fala_ "thanks".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> that you consider as pre-Germanic didn't just relate to Germanic language but also some Iranian, Celtic, Italic, Slavic and Armenian languages.


That's exactly what you can't deduce.



CyrusSH said:


> The change _xʷ>f_ in the Germanic language


There is no change _xʷ>f. _The outcome_ kʷ>f _is the result of _kʷ>p>f._


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> That's exactly what you can't deduce.
> 
> There is no change _xʷ>f. _The outcome_ kʷ>f _is the result of _kʷ>p>f._



Ok, what is your conclusion? What do you think about the Persian words that I mentioned in the post #18? Or words for "four" in other IE languages (#21)?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Ok, what is your conclusion?


That as far as Iranian languages are concerned, #2 answers the question in all relevant respects. There isn't really anything more we could say.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> That as far as Iranian languages are concerned, #2 answers the question in all relevant respects. There isn't really anything more we could say.



If Indo-European sound laws matter, #2 is certainly wrong because in Avestan fricativization never occurs before stops, compare to proto-IE *_se*p*tm_ > Avestan _ha*p*ta_ but proto-IE _kʷe*t*ware_ > Avestan _ča*θ*wārō_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Indo-European sound laws matter


I wouldn't know what that should be. There are "regular" shifts in certain branches or sub branches and to certain development stages and they are called "laws" of that specific branch.

What ahvalj talked about was an irregular shift that occurred "sporadically".

The development of the numeral 4 in Iranian languages conforms to regular a regular shift. So, whatever irregual events might have occurred in the past of that branch with the numeral 4 is concealed.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> I wouldn't know what that should be. There are "regular" shifts in certain branches or sub branches and to certain development stages and they are called "laws" of that specific branch.
> 
> What ahvalj talked about was an irregular shift that occurred "sporadically".
> 
> The development of the numeral 4 in Iranian languages conforms to regular a regular shift. So, whatever irregual events might have occurred in the past of that branch with the numeral 4 is concealed.



The fact is that all words for "four" in Indo-European languages have irregular sound shifts, even in Avestan it is not _caθβaro_ (*tw>θβ) but _čaθwaro_.


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> in Avestan it is not _caθβaro_ (*tw>θβ) but _čaθwaro_.



_β and w_ are two Latinisations of the same Avestan letter. (The former with Hoffmann, the latter with Bartholomae).

Likewise _c_ and _č._


----------



## eamp

CyrusSH said:


> If Indo-European sound laws matter, #2 is certainly wrong because in Avestan fricativization never occurs before stops, compare to proto-IE *_se*p*tm_ > Avestan _ha*p*ta_ but proto-IE _kʷe*t*ware_ > Avestan _ča*θ*wārō_.


That's not true at all, _p_ is preserved in the cluster _pt_, but this seems to be pretty much the only case. /_kt_/ meanwhile always becomes /_xt_/ in Avestan (and Iranian languages in general), cf. _hūxta_-, _fraoxta_, _aoxta _etc.



CyrusSH said:


> The fact is that all words for "four" in Indo-European languages have irregular sound shifts, even in Avestan it is not _caθβaro_ (*tw>θβ) but _čaθwaro_.


That's the same word just different transcriptions! Avestan _caθβārō _is in fact an entirely regular continuation of PIE *_kʷetwores_. 



CyrusSH said:


> For example about the proto-IE word for "four", not only the proto-Germanic word can be from *_petware_ but in Italic languages: Oscan _petora_ and Umbrian _petor_, in the Celtic languages: Welsh _pedwar_ and Cornish _peswar_, in the Hellenic languages: Boeotian _pettares_ and Homeric _pisures_, ...


All those languages except Germanic feature a regular sound shift *_kʷ_ > _p_ (in all words, not only "four"!) of probably relatively late date.
At least in Greek it is post-Mycenaean and varied in outcome between dialects. Aeolic shifted the labiovelars to labials unconditionally while the other dialects show a split between labials and dentals depending on the following vowel. 
The shift in Celtic was probably similarly timed and didn't reach Irish where we have OI _cethir_. The words can't continue a form with PIE *_p-_ in any case since this sound was lost in Proto-Celtic.

Honestly, I am not seeing much in the way of irregular developments in the word for "four" outside of Germanic. Celtic, Sabellic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Iranian, Sanskrit and Tocharian appear unproblematic, though the vocalism of the second syllable may be a bit unpredictable since the paradigm featured ablaut. Only Latin _quattuor _has unexpected a-vocalism and the derived forms are somewhat irregular in _quartus _and _quadra_-.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> _β and w_ are two Latinisations of the same Avestan letter. (The former with Hoffmann, the latter with Bartholomae).
> 
> Likewise _c_ and _č._



There is a huge difference between "voiced bilabial fricative" and "voiced labio-velar approximant", the Avestan letter is which one?


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> That's not true at all, _p_ is preserved in the cluster _pt_, but this seems to be pretty much the only case. /_kt_/ meanwhile always becomes /_xt_/ in Avestan (and Iranian languages in general), cf. _hūxta_-, _fraoxta_, _aoxta _etc.



_-ta_ at the end of those words don't relate to their proto-IE roots.


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> All those languages except Germanic feature a regular sound shift *_kʷ_ > _p_ (in all words, not only "four"!) of probably relatively late date.
> At least in Greek it is post-Mycenaean and varied in outcome between dialects. Aeolic shifted the labiovelars to labials unconditionally while the other dialects show a split between labials and dentals depending on the following vowel.
> The shift in Celtic was probably similarly timed and didn't reach Irish where we have OI _cethir_. The words can't continue a form with PIE *_p-_ in any case since this sound was lost in Proto-Celtic.
> 
> Honestly, I am not seeing much in the way of irregular developments in the word for "four" outside of Germanic. Celtic, Sabellic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Iranian, Sanskrit and Tocharian appear unproblematic, though the vocalism of the second syllable may be a bit unpredictable since the paradigm featured ablaut. Only Latin _quattuor _has unexpected a-vocalism and the derived forms are somewhat irregular in _quartus _and _quadra_-.



I didn't understand what you meant, what do you mean by late date? There is no similarity between Celtic words _cethir_ and _pedwar_, so you can't say one of them is a later development of another one.


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> There is a huge difference between "voiced bilabial fricative" and "voiced labio-velar approximant", the Avestan letter is which one?



It is a fricative. Bartholomae's "w" is the German spelling of this sound.


----------



## eamp

CyrusSH said:


> _-ta_ at the end of those words don't relate to their proto-IE roots.


And...? What does it matter for the sound change? /k/ and /g/ become /x/ before a following /t/.



CyrusSH said:


> I didn't understand what you meant, what do you mean by late date? There is no similarity between Celtic words _cethir_ and _pedwar_, so you can't say one of them is a later development of another one.


That's not what I am saying, I mean both are regular from Proto-Celtic *_kʷetwor_-. The Brittonic languages, like Gaulish were at a later date affected by a shift _kʷ > p_  (therefore > *_petwor_-), probably around the turn of the second to the first millennium BC. Goidelic did not participate in this shift and preserved the older form with /kʷ/, which merged with /k/ (written _<_c_>_) in the transition to Old Irish around ~500 AD. 
Because of these developments we see Irish /k/ vs. Welsh/Breton /p/ in many cognate words. OI _cenn _= OW _penn _- "head", OI _cruim _= OW _prem _- "worm", OI _crenaid_ = OW _prinit _- "buys", OI _cía _= OW _pui _- "who" etc.
When I said the shift is of a late date, I meant well past the Indo-European stage, when the languages had long split up and developed their individual characteristics. 
In Greek the loss of labiovelars must have occurred only a few hundred years before the first preserved alphabetic writing.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> It is a fricative. Bartholomae's "w" is the German spelling of this sound.



Please don't make it a puzzle, German "w" is a "voiced labiodental fricative" which didn't exist in the Avestan phonology.


----------



## fdb

It is no. 34 in table 2. "_β"_
AVESTAN LANGUAGE I-III – Encyclopaedia Iranica


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Please don't make it a puzzle, German "w" is a "voiced labiodental fricative" which didn't exist in the Avestan phonology.


It can also be an approximant. In the part of the country where Bartholomae was from, it even regularly is. But that doesn't matter, he simply used the closest approximation available in the German sound inventory. The modern German <w> is the result of the transition _w>β>ʋ>v_ and not all dialects have completed this transition, yet. German ears, which are accustomed to hearing a large variety of dialects, are trained not to attach significance to the differences between these sounds. That is why Germans sometimes pronounce English_ what_ like _vhat_ but also _vase_ like _wase_.


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> And...? What does it matter for the sound change? /k/ and /g/ become /x/ before a following /t/.



Because that _t_ doesn't belong to PIE consonant cluster, after fricativization we should expect _xθ_ from proto-IE *_kt_ or *_kʷt_. Of course if we make a difference between *_k_ and *_kʷ_ then the problem will be solved, there was *_kʷ_>_x_, like *_ḱs_>_š_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> ... after fricativization we should expect _xθ_ from proto-IE *_kt_ or *_kʷt_.


Not in Iranian. There the regular outcome of this clusters is _xt_.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> It can also be an approximant.



According to the ridiculously complicated phonetic/orthographic laws of Avestan, the IE cluster *tw- > Iranian *ϑw- > Avestan ϑβ-. Similarly, non-initial IE *-d(ͪ)w- > Iranian *-dw- > Gatha-Avestan -duu-, Young Avestan -δβ-. From a phonological point of view <uu> and <β> are allophones/allographs of the phoneme /w/.

NB. The old (Bartholomae) system of transliteration writes <v> for <uu> and <w> for <β>.


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> That's not what I am saying, I mean both are regular from Proto-Celtic *_kʷetwor_-. The Brittonic languages, like Gaulish were at a later date affected by a shift _kʷ > p_  (therefore > *_petwor_-), probably around the turn of the second to the first millennium BC. Goidelic did not participate in this shift and preserved the older form with /kʷ/, which merged with /k/ (written _<_c_>_) in the transition to Old Irish around ~500 AD.
> Because of these developments we see Irish /k/ vs. Welsh/Breton /p/ in many cognate words. OI _cenn _= OW _penn _- "head", OI _cruim _= OW _prem _- "worm", OI _crenaid_ = OW _prinit _- "buys", OI _cía _= OW _pui _- "who" etc.
> When I said the shift is of a late date, I meant well past the Indo-European stage, when the languages had long split up and developed their individual characteristics.
> In Greek the loss of labiovelars must have occurred only a few hundred years before the first preserved alphabetic writing.



I see almost no difference between the Proto-Celtic word that you mentioned and the proto-IE word, probably because _cethir_ and _pedwar_ are so different words.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I see almost no difference between the Proto-Celtic word that you mentioned and the proto-IE word, probably because _cethir_ and _pedwar_ are so different words.


Indeed. Most changes occured after the Proto-Celtic stage.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Not in Iranian. There the regular outcome of this clusters is _xt_.



I think it is clear that _xt_ cluster didn't exist in the Avestan language, if it existed then there should be _xtuirim_, not _axtuirim_, in fact the first syllables is _ax_, not _xtu_, all languages have their own rules, as you read here: Sound change - Wikipedia: "Preconsonantal *voiceless non-continuants (i.e. voiceless stops)* changed into corresponding voiceless continuants (fricatives) in Proto-Iranian" when immediately followed by a *continuant consonant (i.e. resonants and fricatives)*. Examples: Proto-Indo-Iranian *_pra_ 'forth' > Avestan _fra_; *_trayas_ "three" (masc.nom.pl.)> Av. _θrayō_; *_čatwāras_ "four" (masc.nom.pl.) > Av. _čaθwārō_; *_pśaws_ "of a cow" (nom. *_paśu_) > Av. _fšāoš_ (nom. _pasu_). Note that the *fricativization does not occur before stops*, so *_sapta_ "seven" > Av. _hapta_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I think it is clear that _xt_ cluster didn't exist in the Avestan language


In #2 there is an example.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> In #2 there is an example.




…and lots more, e.g. yuxta- “yoked”, baxta- “divided”.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> …and lots more, e.g. yuxta- “yoked”, baxta- “divided”.



voiced + voiced > voiceless + voiceless 

For example:

yuɣ "yuke" + _-da_ > _yuxta_ "yoked" (voiced velar fricative _ɣ_ + voiced dental stop _d_ > voiceless velar fricative _x_ + voiceless dental stop _t_)

_dab_ "deceive" + _-da_ > _dapta_ "deceived" (voiced bilabial stop _b_ + voiced dental stop _d_ > voiceless bilabial stop _p_ + voiceless dental stop _t_)

How can it be related?


----------



## fdb

Indo-Iranian -ta- is a productive suffix for forming the perfect passive participle. It derives from IE *-to-, which forms deverbal nouns like Latin “status”.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> Indo-Iranian -ta- is a productive suffix for forming the perfect passive participle. It derives from IE *-to-, which forms deverbal nouns like Latin “status”.



Do you also believe _bt_>_pt_ (like _dab_>_dapta_) in the Iranian languages?


----------



## CyrusSH

Another important point about num. four in the Indo-European languages is that in the most of Western Iranian, Germanic and Armenian languages, two consonants at the center of PIE words have been dropped, like Kurdish _čar_, Swedish _fyra_ and Armenian _čors_, it can be compared to Western Iranian and Germanic words for num. ten (proto-IE _*deḱm_), like Kurdish _de_ and Danish _ti_, but in all other Indo-European languages these things didn't happen.


----------



## desi4life

CyrusSH said:


> Another important point about num. four in the Indo-European languages is that in the most of Western Iranian, Germanic and Armenian languages, two consonants at the center of PIE words have been dropped, like Kurdish _čar_, Swedish _fyra_ and Armenian _čors_, it can be compared to Western Iranian and Germanic words for num. ten (proto-IE _*deḱm_), like Kurdish _de_ and Danish _ti_, but in all other Indo-European languages these things didn't happen.



No, that's not exclusive to the languages you mentioned. In modern Indic languages there is a similar development, e.g. Hindi _ćār _'four'_, _Marathi _ćār _'four', Awankari _dā _'ten'_, _Khetrani _dā _'ten'_. _One can probably find these types of developments in other branches of IE too. Anyway, it should not be the basis for advocating some kind of close link between languages from different IE branches.


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> No, that's not exclusive to the languages you mentioned. In modern Indic languages there is a similar development, e.g. Hindi _ćār._



There is actually a big difference between Western Iranian/Germanic and Armenian/Indian words (we see a similar difference about the word for "ten"), in the Western Iranian and Germanic language "w" sound exists but it could be unpronounced, the actual Kurdish word for "four" is *čiwar*: چوار - Wiktionary and there was Old English *feower*: feower - Wiktionary


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> Awankari _dā _'ten'_, _Khetrani _dā _'ten'_. _One can probably find these types of developments in other branches of IE too. Anyway, it should not be the basis for advocating some kind of close link between languages from different IE branches.



I don't talk about dialects, in the Western Iranian languages, the oldest known form of the word for "ten" is _dah_, not in a Persian dialect. The fact is that I just don't believe in the nonexistence of any link between IE branches, as you see in the post #21, I say the Gothic word _fidwōr_ relates to some Italic and Celtic words.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I say the Gothic word _fidwōr_ relates to some Italic and Celtic words.


That is just complete nonsense.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> That is just complete nonsense.



Isn't it clear that you believe Germanic was a direct descendant of Indo-European?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Isn't it clear that you believe Germanic was a direct descendant of Indo-European?


Gothic is just the oldest attested Germanic language and closest to PGm. The loss of _d_ we have in West and North Germanic happened after East Germanic split from PGm. The loss of _w_ ist still later. In English and Low German after 1000AD. In West Frisian it is still present.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Gothic is just the oldest attested Germanic language and closest to PGm. The loss of _d_ we have in West and North Germanic happened after East Germanic split from PGm. The loss of _w_ ist still later. In English and Low German after 1000AD. In West Frisian it is still present.



I asked about the relation between Gothic and Italo-Celtic, anyway about what you said I think it relates to the pronunciation of this word in the Germanic and Western Iranian languages, there was something at the middle of the word which could be faded.


----------



## berndf

Gothic has no independent relation to Italic and Celtic. Gothic is a member of a sub branch of Germanic (viz. East-Germanic) and has as such the same genetic relationship status with Italic and Celtic as any other Germanic language.


----------



## CyrusSH

As I found, "four" in Old Welsh and Old Breton was _petguar_, it makes the Celtic words different from the Gothic word, it seems the original "w" sound just preserved in Iranian and Germanic languages.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> As I found, "four" in Old Welsh and Old Breton was _petguar_, it makes the Celtic words different from the Gothic word, it seems the original "w" sound just preserved in Iranian and Germanic languages.


Gaulish still has _petuar(ios). _Tocharian A has _śtwar._


----------



## berndf

<gu> is the usual Old French transction of /w/ as in _guerre,_ which is a Germanic loan cognate to English _war_.

Latin has also retained the /w/.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> Yes, I also believe the same thing, so it is wrong to say Persian _gurpak_ is from proto-IE *welp- "wolf" but _gurg_ is from proto-IE *welkʷ- "wolf", do you agree?


Yes, it must be, cp. the Avestan _vəhrka-._


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> <gu> is the usual Old French transction of /w/ as in _guerre,_ which is a Germanic loan cognate to English _war_.
> 
> Latin has also retained the /w/.


Latin has _uw:_ this _w_ without the preceding vowel is the modern pronunciation in some traditions. The same with_ i_ after consonants: it is _ij,_ not _j_ as modern Romance speakers tend to pronounce it. That can be seen e. g. from the metrics of the Latin poetry.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Latin has _uw:_ this _w_ without the preceding vowel is the modern pronunciation in some traditions. The same with_ i_ after consonants: it is _ij,_ not _j_ as modern Romance speakers tend to pronounce it. That can be seen e. g. from the metrics of the Latin poetry.


Yes, _quattuor_ had three and not two syllables, which can be seen already from the double _tt_. Did I say anything to the contrary?


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Yes, _quattuor_ had three and not two syllables, which can be seen already from the double _tt_. Did I say anything to the contrary?


----------



## desi4life

Sanskrit has retained the /w/ too, e.g. _ćatvāraḥ, ćatvāri. _The transliterated _v_ can vary between /v/ and /w/ because they are allophones.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> <gu> is the usual Old French transction of /w/ as in _guerre,_ which is a Germanic loan cognate to English _war_.
> 
> Latin has also retained the /w/.



It can be true that proto-IE *_w_ was changed to _gu_, the same thing occurred in Persian, like the word for "wolf" that I mentioned but it can't be said that they are the same sounds.


----------



## berndf

There is no "change to gu". It is just a way to write /w/ because Old French had no letter to write that sound. Our modern letter w developed much later.

In loan words like guerre they finally pronounced it the way they spelled it but that is a different matter.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> There is no "change to gu". It is just a way to write /w/ because Old French had no letter to write that sound. Our modern letter w developed much later.
> 
> In loan words like guerre they finally pronounced it the way they spelled it but that is a different matter.



Why _gu_? They could write _v_ (or _vv_) but pronounce _w_, the same thing happened in the Germanic languages, ancient people were not so literate that you say they finally pronounced what they wrote.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> There is no "change to gu". It is just a way to write /w/ because Old French had no letter to write that sound. Our modern letter w developed much later.
> 
> In loan words like guerre they finally pronounced it the way they spelled it but that is a different matter.


Indeed, I have never encountered this interpretation: all the authors I have read assumed that this _gu_ reflects the Romance strengthening _w>gw._ Already in Old French we find words that write _g_ in the place of the Frankish _w _(List of French words of Germanic origin (C-G) - Wikipedia):
_gaschier < *waskan_ (gâcher - Wiktionary)
_gage < *waddî_ (gage - Wiktionary)
_gaigner < *waiđanjan_ (gaigner - Wiktionary)
_garant < *warjan_ (garant - Wiktionary)
_gars/garçun < *wrakjô_ (gars - Wiktionary)
_garder < *wardôn_ (garder - Wiktionary) etc.


----------



## CyrusSH

It seems to be clear that ancient Celtic people had a problem in the pronunciation of "Voiced labio-velar approximant" (w) and this problem was probably solved after contacts with the Germanic people.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> It seems to be clear that ancient Celtic people had a problem in the pronunciation of "Voiced labio-velar approximant" (w) and this problem was probably solved after contacts with the Germanic people.


Ancient Celtic people got into problems with _w_ only to the 4–5th centuries CE. During millennia before that they had no problems.

P. S. What is the topic of this thread?


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Ancient Celtic people got into problems with _w_ only to the 4–5th centuries CE. During millennia before that they had no problems.
> 
> P. S. What is the topic of this thread?



For what reason you know that they didn't have this problem and why this problem suddenly occurred?

The topic is about "Four in Indo-European languages", there is a "w" at middle of PIE word which has been preserved in some IE languages but not in other ones.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It seems to be clear that ancient Celtic people had a problem in the pronunciation of "Voiced labio-velar approximant" (w) and this problem was probably solved after contacts with the Germanic people.


No, they have no problems with it. The Welsh word for 4 is and was _pedwar_. _Petguar _is for sure just a strange spelling for it. I don't know where you got that from but it is possible because_ gu _was used in loans of Germanic /w/ into Romance languages and it could well have been used by some scribes to represent the Welsh /w/.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> For what reason you know that they didn't have this problem and why this problem suddenly occurred?
> 
> The topic is about "Four in Indo-European languages", there is a "w" at middle of PIE word which has been preserved in some IE languages but not in other ones.


Because before the 4–5th centuries the attested Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Oghamic Irish — Ogham inscription - Wikipedia) show _w._

The preservation of _tw_ in the word "four" is a diachronic thing: as of 2017 CE no language, if I am not mistaken, retains it; in 2017 BC probably all did, so in the course of the last 4034 years it was gradually disappearing in one lineage after another. I don't think there is any hidden sense in that some did it earlier and the others later.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> The preservation of _tw_ in the word "four" is a diachronic thing: as of 2017 CE no language, if I am not mistaken, retains it;


Well, Welsh *does*... As of 2017. It only voiced the _t_ to _d_ but that is a very minor change.


----------



## ahvalj

Well, if minor changes are allowed, Balto-Slavic in 2017 still has _tv_ in e. g. the Russian _че́тверо/čétvʲero_ (<<_*kʷetu̯erom_) and the Luthuanian _ketverì_ (<<_*kʷetu̯eroı̯_), both meaning "the four of", cp. the Sanskrit _catvaram_ (Sanskrit Dictionary).


----------



## berndf

His issue at this specific point of the discussion was specifically the /w/:


CyrusSH said:


> It seems to be clear that ancient Celtic people had a problem in the pronunciation of "Voiced labio-velar approximant" (w)


And that is not lost in Welsh.


----------



## ahvalj

OK, Lower Sorbian preserves _w, _and its counterpart of these Russian and Lithuanian words is _stwóry._ Must be suggestive of special connections between Wales and Lusatia (like in #57).


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> No, they have no problems with it. The Welsh word for 4 is and was _pedwar_. _Petguar _is for sure just a strange spelling for it. I don't know where you got that from but it is possible because_ gu _was used in loans of Germanic /w/ into Romance languages and it could well have been used by some scribes to represent the Welsh /w/.



What do you think about these words:

Proto-IE *_wers_ "top,best": Welsh _gorau_ - Old Irish ferr (Irish fearr)
Proto-IE *_wīr_ "man": Old Welsh _gur_ (Welsh _gŵr_) - Old Irish fer (Irish _fear_)
Proto-IE *_welǝn-_ "wool": Old Welsh _gulan_ (Welsh _gwlân_) - Middle Irish _olan_
Proto-IE *_wedh-_ "to join": Welsh _gwedd_ - Old Irish _fedan_
...

For example about gŵr: gŵr - Wiktionary Pronunciation: */ɡuːr/*


----------



## berndf

There was a Brythonioc sound shift_ w>ɣw>gw_. But that affects only word initial proto-Celtic _w_.


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> Because before the 4–5th centuries the attested Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish, Oghamic Irish — Ogham inscription - Wikipedia) show _w._



4–5th centuries AD?!! In which words it shows _w_? Is it certainly from proto-IE *_w_? 

eamp was talking about the second millennium BC!


----------



## desi4life

ahvalj said:


> Well, if minor changes are allowed, Balto-Slavic in 2017 still has _tv_ in e. g. the Russian _че́тверо/čétvʲero_ (<<_*kʷetu̯erom_) and the Luthuanian _ketverì_ (<<_*kʷetu̯eroı̯_), both meaning "the four of", cp. the Sanskrit _catvaram_ (Sanskrit Dictionary).



The Sanskrit व्, although transliterated in Roman as _v_ by convention, was pronounced as /w/ in early Sanskrit before evolving into a labio-dental approximant with /v/ and /w/ as allophones.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> eamp was talking about the second millennium BC!


And? What has the one to do with the other? eamp talked about something totally different (the _p_-Celtic shift _kʷ > p,_ relevant for the explanation of the initial _p_).

But this all doesn't matter. Welsh did preserved the_ w_ in _pedwar _and that's it.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> There was a Brythonioc sound shift_ w>ɣw>gw_. But that affects only word initial proto-Celtic _w_.





berndf said:


> But this all doesn't matter. Welsh did preserved the_ w_ in _pedwar _and that's it.



No, it shows Welsh didn't preserve _w_ as an independent sound, almost the same as Modern Persian.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> No, it shows Welsh didn't preserve _w_ as an independent sound, almost the same as Modern Persian.


It did. The two statements you cited are not in contradiction. If you can't see why, reread the first one more carefully, especially the 2nd sentence.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> eamp talked about something totally different (the _p_-Celtic shift _kʷ > p,_ relevant for the explanation of the initial _p_).



It seems the actual sound change in the Celtic languages was *_kʷ > p > c_, like proto-IE *_pénkʷe_ > Welsh _pump_ > Irish _cóic_ but this change doesn't sound logical.

I think the original proto-IE word was different, for example about "four" it could be *_kpetware_, I mean the fist letter was a "voiceless bilabial-velar plosive" (kp), and *_kpenkpe_ "five", it seems the proto-IE word for "seven" was also *_sekptm_, so there were Tocharian _ṣukt_ and Gaulish _sextan_.


----------



## eamp

CyrusSH said:


> Because that _t_ doesn't belong to PIE consonant cluster, after fricativization we should expect _xθ_ from proto-IE *_kt_ or *_kʷt_. Of course if we make a difference between *_k_ and *_kʷ_ then the problem will be solved, there was *_kʷ_>_x_, like *_ḱs_>_š_.


Why _xθ? _What? Where did you get this idea that the whole cluster should become fricative?
And it does not matter whether a cluster existed in PIE, just that it did at the time when fricativisation arose as a process in Iranian languages. Anyway, Indo-Iranian *_kt _from PIE *(_g_/_gʷ_/_k_/_kʷ_) + _t_ becomes _xt _in Avestan. Additionally _xt _arises in cases when voiceless _t_ is restored in the cluster _gd _(< IA _*gʰdʰ_ < PIE *_gʷʰ/gʰ_ + _t_), as in the past participle.



CyrusSH said:


> It seems the actual sound change in the Celtic languages was *_kʷ > p > c_, like proto-IE *_pénkʷe_ > Welsh _pump_ > Irish _cóic_ but this change doesn't sound logical.
> 
> I think the original proto-IE word was different, for example about "four" it could be *_kpetware_, I mean the fist letter was a "voiceless bilabial-velar plosive" (kp), and *_kpenkpe_ "five", it seems the proto-IE word for "seven" was also *_sekptm_, so there were Tocharian _ṣukt_ and Gaulish _sextan_.


Yeah, this is total nonsense. 
These are not actual problems of reconstruction in Indo-European but issues that were settled a hundred years ago. 
The interchange of Welsh /p/ and Irish /k/ is not a mystery which requires any ingenious new theories, it's stuff you can read in handbooks that have gone public domain by now.


----------



## CyrusSH

About my previous post, I should add that I always wondered why Persian _panja_ (_panč_) and _čanga_ (_čank_) are almost the same words, other IE words, like Latin _quinque_ "five" can explain it well.


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> Why _xθ? _What? Where did you get this idea that the whole cluster should become fricative?[
> And it does not matter whether a cluster existed in PIE, just that it did at the time when fricativisation arose as a process in Iranian languages. Anyway, Indo-Iranian *_kt _from PIE *(_g_/_gʷ_/_k_/_kʷ_) + _t_ becomes _xt _in Avestan. Additionally _xt _arises in cases when voiceless _t_ is restored in the cluster _gd _(< IA _*gʰdʰ_ < PIE *_gʷʰ/gʰ_ + _t_), as in the past participle.



I explained it in another post, the reason is that _xt_ is not a continuant, so it didn't exist as a cluster in the Avestan language, of course it is just about Avestan, for example the Persian word for "seven" is _ha*f*t_, unlike Avestan _ha*p*ta_, or the name of Bactria in the Old Persian was _Baxtri_ (baxt+ri) but in Avestan it was _Baxdi_ (bax+di).


----------



## CyrusSH

eamp said:


> Yeah, this is total nonsense.
> These are not actual problems of reconstruction in Indo-European but issues that were settled a hundred years ago.
> The interchange of Welsh /p/ and Irish /k/ is not a mystery which requires any ingenious new theories, it's stuff you can read in handbooks that have gone public domain by now.



I wonder how they solved the problem! A principal sound change in the Celtic languages is that proto-IE *_p_ was lost (_athair_ "father"),  so proto-IE *_penkʷe_ couldn't be changed to _pump_ in Welsh or _cóic_ in Irish.

What I said in the post #21 about different PIE words: *_kʷetware_ and *_petware_ for "four" and *_penkʷe_ and *_pempe_ for "five", can't be true too because Irish _cóic_ couldn't be from any of them.


----------



## berndf

If we accept the Italo-Celtic hypothesis this would be relatively simple. Then we would have the shift _penkʷe > kʷenkʷe _(shift of _p_ to _kʷ_ in front of another _kʷ_ in the same word) not only in Italic (Latin _quinque_) but also in proto-Celtic. Old Irish _coic_ and Old Welsh _pimp_ makes sense. Because the PIE _p_ had shifted to _kʷ_ already before proto-Celtic, the proto-Celtic loss of _p_ did not affect this word.

This is actually one of the most prominent example mentioned by the proponents of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> If we accept the Italo-Celtic hypothesis this would be relatively simple. Then we would have the shift _penkʷ > kʷenkʷe _(shift of _p_ to _kʷ_ in front of another _kʷ_ in the same word) not only in Italic (Latin _quinque_) but also in
> proto-Celtic. Old Irish _coic_ and Old Welsh _pimp_ makes sense. Because the PIE _p_ had shifted to _kʷ_ already before proto-Celtic, the proto-Celtic loss of _p_ did not affect this word.
> 
> This is actually one of the most prominent example mentioned by the proponents of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis.



I still can't understand the shift of _p_ to _kʷ_, I think the Latin word relates to a PIE words for "five fingers", like Persian _čank/čanga_ (probably from proto-IE *_kʷenkʷ-_) , it can be compared to the PIE word for "finger" (the English word _finger_ also relates to "five"), or the PIE word for "fingernail" like Latin _uncus_ and _unguis_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I still can't understand the shift of _p_ to _kʷ_


Well, the explanation is quite straight forward. I can't see what's difficult to understand. It is a simple assimilation.


CyrusSH said:


> I think the Latin word relates to a PIE words for "five fingers", like Persian _čank/čanga_ (probably from proto-IE *_kʷenkʷ-_)


The Persian cognate is *پنج.*


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Well, the explanation is quite straight forward. I can't see what's difficult to understand. It is a simple assimilation.
> 
> The Persian cognate is *پنج.*



This assimilation happened in proto-IE because Persian چنگ has certainly the the meaning of five: 

معنی چنگ | فرهنگ فارسی عمید

چنگ /čang/ 

۱. پنجۀ انسان؛ پنج انگشت دست انسان.
۲. پنجه و چنگال درندگان و پرندگان.
۳. [قدیمی] دست.
۴. [قدیمی] قلاب؛ چنگک.


----------



## berndf

You can't tell me you don't know that and why this is nonsense.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> You can't tell me you don't know that and why this is nonsense.



I don't know what I don't know! Assimilation in proto-IE, different origin of Persian _čang_, or this thing that there couldn't be two words with the meaning of five in Persian? What is the origin of English _finger_?


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> This assimilation happened in proto-IE because Persian چنگ has certainly the the meaning of five:
> 
> معنی چنگ | فرهنگ فارسی عمید
> 
> چنگ /čang/
> 
> ۱. پنجۀ انسان؛ پنج انگشت دست انسان.
> ۲. پنجه و چنگال درندگان و پرندگان.
> ۳. [قدیمی] دست.
> ۴. [قدیمی] قلاب؛ چنگک.




čang means "claw". It can be used figuratively to mean "hand", and thus "five fingers".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> What is the origin of English _finger_?


Unclear. A relationship with _five_ is one possibility but not the only one.

But this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> čang means "claw". It can be used figuratively to mean "hand", and thus "five fingers".



You yourself know that it is completely vice versa, compare to *_upar-čanga_ "bracelet" and *_upar-angušta_ "ring".


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Unclear. A relationship with _five_ is one possibility but not the only one.
> 
> But this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.



It is important, it shows proto-Germanic *_finfi_ was not from proto-IE (or pre-Germanic) *_pempe_, and for the same reason Gothic _fidwōr_ was not from proto-IE (or pre-Germanic) *_petwōr_, unless you can explain *_p_>_g_ sound change in Germanic.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> You yourself know that it is completely vice versa


I see no reason to be so sure about this. The obvious is what @fdb wrote.

But be this as it may, the elephant in the room is *پنج*=five and for چنگ you have to look elsewhere.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is important, it shows proto-Germanic *_finfi_ was not from proto-IE (or pre-Germanic) *_pempe_, and for the same reason Gothic _fidwōr_ was not from proto-IE (or pre-Germanic) *_petwōr_, unless you can explain *_p_>_g_ sound change in Germanic.


There is nothing that would require _finger_ to be derived from pre-Germanic *_pempe_ even if PGm *_fimfe_ is and even if _finger_ where somehow related to PIE_ *penkwe_. That is why it is irrelevant.


----------



## CyrusSH

In Persian čanga means "fist" (a person's hand when five fingers are bent in towards the palm), as I see the English word fist also relates to the proto-IE word for "five" (**pénkʷe*) and it has cognates in Slavic and Baltic languages (the first one begin with "p" but the second one with "k") and there is also Latin-origin word _punch_ and Persian _panča_, I have got confused!


----------



## berndf

That is why it is so tedious to work with Wiktionary etymology. If you look, e.g., at the DWDS etymology informatiin about _Finger_ and _Faust_, they go at great length explaining why the etymology is doubtful and they compare the different possibilities in the discussion of one of these possibilities we find something like _it would then be related to ie. penkwe_. But whoever adds the Wiktionary etymology just sees prenkwe and adds "from PIE penkwe", which takes this completely out of context.

Unfortunately a good deal of the most important academic works on etymology are in German, simply because they have such a long academic tradition in these things, and it is not always easy to get the relevant information if you can't read German.


----------



## CyrusSH

Would you please translate what it says about _finger_ and _fist_? We can't ignore possibilities.


----------



## berndf

We have gone already off-topic too far. Going into the details of _finger_ doesn't belong into this thread. It would only be relevant to this thread if we were to re-assess IE etymology altogether and that is beyond the scope of this forum.


----------

