# Greek 'eksi' / Georgian 'ekvsi' : 'six'



## AndrasBP

Hello, 

The Greek numeral 'eksi' (έξι) and Georgian 'ekvsi' (ექვსი) both mean 'six' and sound remarkably similar.
I know the two languages are not related, but if it isn't just coincidence, could it be an unusual case of borrowing? The languages did have some contact in the past, and I assume cultural ties through Orthodox Christianity were also significant.

I'm aware that it's a completely different situation, but the Romani language (spoken by the Roma people) borrowed the numerals 7-8-9 from Greek.


----------



## Perseas

Yes, both languages lack the 's' in front the numeral, in contrast to other languages (eg. _six, sechs, sei_, etc.). If this similarity is due to the contact the two languages had in the past, what was the initial Georgian word? As for the Greek word: έξι < έξ < Fέξ < Ι.Ε.*sweks.


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> έξι < έξ < Fέξ < Ι.Ε.*sweks


Proto-Greek _*hweks_ had indeed an alternative outcome _Fέξ_ /weks/ in Classical Greek. But the modern _έξι_ /eksi/ is derived from classical _ἕξ_ /heks/ and not from _έξ_ /eks/, isn't it?


----------



## Perseas

berndf said:


> Proto-Greek _*hweks_ had indeed an alternative outcome _Fέξ_ /weks/ in Classical Greek. But the modern _έξι_ /eksi/ is derived from classical _ἕξ_ /heks/ and not from _έξ_ /eks/, isn't it?


Yes, you’re right. I’ve just dropped the rough breathing (δασεία in Greek).


----------



## AndrasBP

Perseas said:


> Yes, both languages lack the 's' in front the numeral, in contrast to other languages (eg. _six, sechs, sei_, etc.).


I don't think it makes sense to contrast Georgian with Indo-European forms starting with s-, since it isn't an IE language in the first place. 
The Georgian numerals 1-5 sound nothing like any IE forms. That's why /ekvsi/ is surprising. 

1 erti
2 ori
3 sami
4 otxi
5 xuti
('x' is the velar fricative /x/)


----------



## Perseas

AndrasBP said:


> since it isn't an IE language in the first place.


True.

My point however remains if before 'ekvsi' (ექვსი) Georgian had another word for the numeral 'six'.



Perseas said:


> If this similarity is due to the contact the two languages had in the past, what was the initial Georgian word?


----------



## Perseas

I found this information:

ექვსი
Etymology
From Old Georgian ექუსი (ekusi), from Proto-Kartvelian *eks₁w-, from Proto-Indo-European *swéḱs.
ექვსი - Wiktionary


----------



## AndrasBP

Perseas said:


> From Old Georgian ექუსი (ekusi), from Proto-Kartvelian *eks₁w-, from Proto-Indo-European *swéḱs.


Interesting. 
Does that mean that it's a very very early loan, from one proto-language into another proto-language?
And later, at some point, the initial *s of the Proto-IE form disappeared both in Georgian and Greek, coincidentally?


----------



## Perseas

AndrasBP said:


> And later, at some point, the initial *s of the Proto-IE form disappeared both in Georgian and Greek, coincidentally?


Yes, that's a good question.



AndrasBP said:


> The Georgian numerals 1-5 sound nothing like any IE forms. That's why /ekvsi/ is surprising.
> .............
> 4 otxi


Another interesting finding about '4 otxi' is this:

_From Proto-Kartvelian *otxo-, which is an early borrowing of the Proto-Indo-European *oḱtṓw. _
ოთხი - Wiktionary


----------



## apmoy70

AndrasBP said:


> Interesting.
> Does that mean that it's a very very early loan, from one proto-language into another proto-language?
> And later, at some point, the initial *s of the Proto-IE form disappeared both in Georgian and Greek, coincidentally?


In Greek the initial PIE *s- does not disappear, it follows Grassmann's law which expects the dissimilation of initial PIE *s- into the aspirate *h-, so the PIE *swéḱs > Greek ἕξ hék͜s > MoGr έξ(ι) [ˈe.k͜s] or [ˈe.k͜si] (the latter for euphonic reasons). 

The loss of the prevocalic h- at the beginning of an aspirated word, was progressive during the period of the Koine, beginning with more popular varieties but eventually affecting even the pronunciation of the most educated speakers, by the late Roman/Byzantine period (4th c. CE).

I'm not familiar with the Kartvelian language family, but according to Wikipedia (yes, I know) the oldest literary source in a Kartvelian language dates back to the mid-5th c. CE, which coincides with the date of the loss of the pronunciation of initial vowel aspiration in Greek, give or take 50-100 years. So perhaps Byzantine Greek influenced Georgian(?)


----------



## AndrasBP

apmoy70 said:


> In Greek the initial PIE *s- does not disappear, it follows Grassmann's law which expects the dissimilation of initial PIE *s- into the aspirate *h-, so the PIE *swéḱs > Greek ἕξ hék͜s > MoGr έξ(ι) [ˈe.k͜s] or [ˈe.k͜si] (the latter for euphonic reasons).
> 
> The loss of the prevocalic h- at the beginning of an aspirated word, was progressive during the period of the Koine, beginning with more popular varieties but eventually affecting even the pronunciation of the most educated speakers, by the late Roman/Byzantine period (4th c. CE).


Thank you for the explanation.



Perseas said:


> Another interesting finding about '4 otxi' is this:
> 
> _From Proto-Kartvelian *otxo-, which is an early borrowing of the Proto-Indo-European *oḱtṓw. _


Wait, so *_oktow _is supposed to mean 'two fours' and the meaning 'four' is only preserved in Georgian? That's proto-cool!
(If this hypothesis about these very ancient forms is correct, of course... I can't judge how much of it is speculation.)


----------



## ahvalj

The idea of the Proto-Indo-European origin of the Kartvelian words for "four" and "six" is known outside Wiktionary as well, cp. _Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VV · 1995 · Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: _775 — Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VV · 1995 · Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans.pdf

The original PIE word "four" may be preserved in the Avestan _ašti-_ "four fingers (measure or length)", see _Расторгуева ВС, Эдельман ДИ · 2000 · Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 1. a–ā: _252 — Расторгуева ВС, Эдельман ДИ · 2000 · Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 1. a–ā.pdf

The presumably newer PIE word _*kʷetu̯er_ "four" may have originally meant "quadrangle", cp. the Sanskrit thematized outcome _catvaram~catvaraḥ_ "quadrangle, square" (Sanskrit Dictionary).

In Finnic and Volgaic languages, the word "ten" is *_kymmene-,_ but in "eight" and "nine" a PIE element *_-teksan_ "ten" (perhaps, early Indo-Iranic) may be discerned (along with other explanations), e. g. Finnish _kahdeksan_ "eight" (_*kakte_ "two") and _yhdeksän_ "nine" (_*ykte_ "one"), e. g. here — [ETY] Eesti etümoloogiasõnaraamat.


----------



## fdb

apmoy70 said:


> In Greek the initial PIE *s- does not disappear, it follows Grassmann's law which expects the dissimilation of initial PIE *s- into the aspirate *h-, so the PIE *swéḱs > Greek ἕξ hék͜s > MoGr έξ(ι) [ˈe.k͜s] or [ˈe.k͜si] (the latter for euphonic reasons).



This has nothing to do with Graßmann’s law, which is about the substitution of aspirated stops by unaspirated stops in specific circumstances. This law operated in the prehistoric phase of Greek, as did the (totally unrelated) shift of IE /s/ to Greek /h/. The Byzantine and Modern Greek generalised loss of initial /h/ took place much later.


----------



## ahvalj

Perseas said:


> Another interesting finding about '4 otxi' is this:
> 
> _From Proto-Kartvelian *otxo-, which is an early borrowing of the Proto-Indo-European *oḱtṓw. _
> ოთხი - Wiktionary


More about the PIE "four". That _*kʷetu̯er _may have replaced an earlier numeral in late PIE may be supported by the Anatolian evidence:  the potential traces of _*kʷetu̯ores _in this branch (believed to be the first attested one to split off) are represented only by the Hittite _kutruu̯an-~kutruen-_ "witness" and derived words, as well as by the Hieroglyphic Luwian _trwan(i)-_ "judge", _trwana/i-_ "justice", which may be in principle derived from _*kʷtru-en-_ with the meaning "fourth party" like the Latin _testis_ "witness"_ < *tr̥stis < *tristis _"third party" (for phonetics compare _ter_ "thrice" _< *tr̥s < *tris_) (_Kloekhorst A · 2008 · Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon: _499–501). Otherwise, the proper word "four" in Anatolian is the completely separate Hittite _me(ı̯)uš,_ Cuneiform Luwian _māuu̯a-,_ perhaps also Lycian _mu-pm̃m _"four-fold" (Kloekhorst: 571–572). So, it is not impossible that the older PIE _*Hokʲto-_ "four" was replaced with different words in Anatolian and the remaining branches.


----------



## sotos

AndrasBP said:


> The Georgian numerals 1-5 sound nothing like any IE forms.
> 1 erti



It reminds the german _erste._


----------



## fdb

Perseas said:


> _From Proto-Kartvelian *otxo-, which is an early borrowing of the Proto-Indo-European *oḱtṓw. _
> ოთხი - Wiktionary



This is not entirely correct. The suggestion (which goes back to Henning 1948) is that _*oḱtṓ _"eight" is the dual of _*oḱti_, the ancestor of Avestan ašti, “four fingers, span”. The Kartvelian words for “four” would then descend from the singular, not the dual.


----------



## ahvalj

The rather strange thing is that _*Hokʲtohₑ(u)_ "eight" grammatically is the masculine thematic dual, like in "two" and "both"_ (dvau, ubhau, aṣṭau)._ It implies that the original word _*Hokʲtos_ "four" was neither plural, as _*treı̯es,_ nor indeclinable, as all numbers from _*penkʷe "five" _on, but a normal masculine singular.


----------



## fdb

The replacement of  thematic _*oḱto-_ by _*oḱti-_ is perhaps by analogy to the word for “fist”, as in Russian пясть.


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> It implies that the original word _*Hokʲtos_ "four" was neither plural, as _*treı̯es,_ nor indeclinable, as all numbers from _*penkʷe "five" _on, but a normal masculine singular.



I think this difficulty vanishes if one accepts that _*oḱti- _is not a numeral ("four"), but an anatomical feature ("span").


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, of course, I meant that in the general picture of the PIE cardinal numerals this thematic singular of "four" looks somewhat out of place. The only other such form is _*Hoı̯-n/u̯-os _"one", which is semantically appropriate (and obviously secondary, a replacement of _*sem-_).

P. S. And, as we know, the replacement (if it was indeed so), was adapted as a Plural: _*kʷetu̯ores_ (m) / _kʷetusres_ (f) _/ kʷetu̯ōr_ (n, here _*-ōr<*-orhₐ _by Szemerényi's law - Wikipedia).

P. P. S. I've thought my concern was probably irrelevant: we have the generally indeclinable _*dekʲm̥(t)_ "ten", but for "hundred" a Genitive Plural _(dekʲm̥t) dkʲm̥tom_ "ten of tens" was created; thus, the word "eight" may have been a similarly derived case form from the normally indeclinable and endingless _*Hokʲto_ "four" (which would agree with both _*penkʷe_ and above on the one hand, and with the Kartvelian _*otxo_ on the other)


----------

