Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

1

Some Thoughts on the


Proto-Indo-European Cardinal Numbers

Allan R. Bomhard
Charleston, SC, USA

Though there are problems with the reconstruction of a common form for the number
one (see below), the following cardinal numbers one to ten are traditionally reconstructed
for later Proto-Indo-European (for additional information, cf. Blaek 1999:141324; Meillet
1964:409413; Beekes 1995:212213; Szemernyi 1960; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:740
744; Sihler 1995:404433; Adrados 1975.II:871877; AdradosBernabMendoza 1995
1998.III:127131):

Brugmann Szemernyi Meier-Brgger Fortson
(1904:363365) (1996:222224) (2003:233234) (2004:131)

1 *oi-no-s *oinos (*Ho-) *oi-no-
*oio- *oi-o-
*oikos *oi-ko-
*sem- *sem- *sem- *sem-
2 *d(u)(u) *duw/*dw *d(u)o- *d(u)oh
3 *tre-, *tri- *treyes *tr-es *tres
4 *qetor- *ketwores *ktor- *ktores
5 *peqe *penke *penke *pnke
6 *s()e%s *s(w)eks *s(u)#s *s%s
7 *septi *septi *septj *septj
8 *o%t(u) *okt *o#t- *o%t(u)
9 *ne, *en *new *hn *ne
10 *de%i *dekit/*deki *d#i *de%i

The numbers in Anatolian are, for the most part, not known inasmuch as they are written
ideographically (cf. Luraghi 1997:27). The number seven occurs in Hittite in the ordinal (dat.)
i-ip-ta-mi-ya seventh (cf. Sanskrit saptam- seventh; Latin septimus seventh) (cf.
Sturtevant 1951:30, 44, 60, 63, 77, and 87; Kronasser 1956:152; Benveniste 1962:83). The
number three is also represented in Hittite in (adv.) te-ri-ya-an-na for the third time, and the
military title te-ri-ya-al-la, tar-ri-ya-na-al-li third-in-command, officer of the third rank (cf.
Kronasser 1956:151; Benveniste 1962:82; Blaek 1999:186187), apparently to be read *tri-
three (cf. Benveniste 1962:86), while two is found in Hittite in the military title du-ya-na-al-li
second-in-command, officer of the second rank, the compound ta-a-i--ga-a, da-a-i--ga-a,
ta-a--ga-a two years old (da-/ta- two + i--ga-a yearling), da-a-an, ta-a-an a second
time; second, and (nom. sg. c.) da-ma-a-(i-)i second, other (cf. Sturtevant 1951:34, 58, 61,
67, and 110; Kronasser 1956:151; Benveniste 1962:81), and in Hieroglyphic Luwian tu-wa/i-zi
two (cf. Laroche 1960:206; Meriggi 1962:136; Blaek 1999:164). All three of these forms
2
agree with what is found in the non-Anatolian Indo-European daughter languages. The forms in
the Anatolian languages for the number four, however, differ from those that are found
elsewhere: Proto-Anatolian *meyu- four > Hittite (nom. pl.) mi-e-(ya-)wa-a, (acc. pl.) mi-e--
u, (gen. pl.) mi-i--wa[-a] four, Luwian mauwa- four (instr. pl. ma-a-u-wa-a-ti) (cf.
Benveniste 1962:81; Laroche 1959:70; Blaek 1999:201202).
Two basic stems may be reconstructed for the number one: *Hoy- and *sem- (cf. Sihler
1995:404407; Fortson 2004:131). The underlying meaning of the first stem appears to have
been single, alone, while that of the second stem appears to have been together (with) (cf.
Szemernyi 1996:222; Blaek 1999:155). The first stem only occurs with various suffixes: (1)
*Hoy-no- (cf. Latin nus one [Old Latin oinos]; Old Irish en, in one; Gothic ains one; Old
English n one; Old High German ein one; Old Church Slavic in one it is also found in
Greek ovq, oivo roll of one [in dice]); (2) *Hoy-wo- (cf. Avestan ava- one; Old Persian
aiva- one it is also found in Greek oio alone, lone, lonely [Cyprian oi+o]); (3) *Hoy-
ko- or *Hoy-ko- (cf. Sanskrit ka- one; Mitanni [Proto-Indic] aika- one). The second
stem is found in Greek: Attic (nom. sg. m.) ci one, Doric one, Cretan cv (< *cv < *c <
*sems) one; Attic (f.) iu (< *o-iu) one. It is also found in Armenian mi one. To
complicate matters, the various forms of the ordinal found in the daughter languages are based
upon yet another Proto-Indo-European stem: *per(H)-/*p3(H)- first (> *p3H-wo-, *p3H-
mo-, *prey-mo-, *prey-wo-, *proH-to-, *proH-mo-, etc. [for details, cf. Blaek 1999:141
162; see also Szemernyi 1996:228; Sihler 1995:427428]).
There was a variant form *tw-i- (traditional reconstruction *dw-i-) two in Proto-Indo-
European that was used in compounds (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:742) and in the
adverbial form *tw-i-s twice (cf. Latin bis twice [Old Latin duis]; Sanskrit d(u)v twice;
Avestan bi twice; Greek oi twice; Middle High German zwir twice). The regular form for
the number two is traditionally reconstructed as a dual *duw/*dw (Szemernyis
reconstruction), though the dual forms may have arisen in the early prehistory of the individual
daughter languages themselves (cf. Sihler 1995:408). This view is quite attractive, and I would
reconstruct *t(u)w-o- as a plural (originally indeclinable) and not as a dual at the Proto-Indo-
European level (the plural is still found, for example, in forms such as Greek [nom. pl.] oto,
[nom.-acc. pl.] ouoiv). Attempts to come up with an etymology within Indo-European itself for
this number have met with little success (cf. Blaek 1999:175179). That the core form was
*t(u)w- (cf. Blaek 1999:178; Villar 1991:136154; ErnoutMeillet 1979:187188) is
shown by the fact that the thematic vowel *-o- could be added directly to the that form, on the
one hand, to yield the form traditionally reconstructed for the independent word for the number
two, while, when used in compounds or to express twice, the extension *-i- could be added
directly to the core form instead. Thus, we get *t(u)w-o- ~ *t(u)w-i- two.
There are several forms in Hittite that point to an alternative form for two in Proto-
Indo-European these are: the compound ta-a-i--ga-a, da-a-i--ga-a, ta-a--ga-a two
years old (da-/ta- two + i--ga-a yearling), da-a-an, ta-a-an a second time; second, and
(nom. sg. c.) da-ma-a-(i-)i second, other. These forms point to a Proto-Indo-European *te-
/*to- (earlier *te-/*ta-) two (cf. Sturtevant 1951:61 [Sturtevant reconstructs Proto-Indo-
Hittite *do- two]; Benveniste 1962:7886 [Benveniste brings in data from non-Anatolian
Indo-European daughter languages to support his views]). There is absolutely no way to
reconcile *te-/*to- with *t(u)w-o/i- phonologically so that they can be convincingly combined
3
in a single reconstruction (AdradosBernabMendoza 19951998.III:138 note the problems
involved and discuss proposed solutions). Consequently, two competing forms must be
reconstructed for the number two in Proto-Indo-European. If the Proto-Indo-European number
ten were originally a compound meaning two hands, that is, *te- two + *ki(t)- hand, as
some have suggested (cf. Szemernyi 1960:69 and 1996:224, fn. 16; Markey 1984:284285;
Justus 1988:533; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:747; AdradosBernabMendoza 1995
1998.III: 131; but rejected by Blaek 1999:295296), it would provide additional evidence for
reconstructing two separate forms for the number two.
This situation raises the question as to why there should be two alternative forms for the
number two in Proto-Indo-European. A possible answer is that *te-/*to- may have been the
native form, while *t(u)w-o/i- may have been a borrowing. Given the geographical location of
the Indo-European homeland in the vicinity of the Black Sea near speakers of early Northwest
Caucasian languages, these languages might have been a possible source for the *t(u)w-o/i-
form. Indeed, there is a striking resemblance between Proto-Indo-European *t(u)w-o/i- two
and similar forms for this number in Northwest Caucasian: Proto-Northwest Caucasian *tqo-
two > Proto-Circassian *t# two, Proto-Ubykh *tq (> * tqa) twice, Proto-Abkhaz-
Abaza *t two (cf. Colarusso 1992:45). Kuipers (1975:19) reconstructs Proto-Circassian
*Tq(a) two (> Bedux t(a)/t(a)w, -t(a) two [twice]; Kabardian -ta only in mzamta
more than once, repeatedly, literally, not-once-not-twice). Colarusso (1992:45) derives the
Proto-Indo-European form for the number two from *t#, which he claims first became
*t# and then *t(u)w-o- [traditional *d(u)w-o-]. Colarusso (1992) documents many other
similarities between Proto-Indo-European and Northwest Caucasian. These similarities lead
Colarusso to think about possible genetic relationship. I prefer to see the similarities to be due to
the fact that the Indo-Europeans occupied territory north of and between the Black and Caspian
Seas that was originally inhabited by speakers of early Northwest Caucasian languages. We can
further speculate that *t(u)w-o/i- two eventually replaced the native Proto-Indo-European
word for two, which survived only in relic forms and in the word for the number ten (*te-
ki(t)).
The Proto-Indo-European word for the number three is completely straightforward and
can be reconstructed *tr-ey-/*tr-i-. Sanskrit (nom.-acc.) tisr and related forms in other Indo-
European daughter languages are dissimilated from *tri-sr- (cf. Sihler 1995:410).
The word for the number four is traditionally reconstructed *ketwores (so Szemernyi;
Brugmann reconstructs *qetor-). The most convincing etymology is that offered by Burrow
(1973:259) (see also Beekes 1987:219):

4. This number is formed on the basis of a root ket which seems originally to have
meant something like angle (cf. Lat. triquetrus triangular), whence square and from that
four. In the masc. and neut. (catvZras, catvZri, Lat. quattuor, etc.) the stem is formed by means
of the suffix -var, with adjectival accent and v0ddhi in the nominative. In the other cases (acc.
catras, etc.) the suffix has the weak form according to the general rule. A neuter noun *ctvar,
or its IE prototype, is presupposed by the thematic extension catvara- square, crossroads.
Elsewhere the simple r-suffix may appear (Gk. Dor. tctopc, Lat. quarter), or the elements of the
suffix may be reversed (Av. aru-).

In accordance with Burrows views, the form *ket-wor- square may be reconstructed for
later Proto-Indo-European. It was preserved in Sanskrit in the thematic derivative catvar-m
4
quadrangular place, square, crossroads (cf. Mayrhofer 19561980.I:371). It was this form
that served as the basis for the number four found in the non-Anatolian daughter languages:
(nom. pl.) *ket-wgr. Curiously, the suffix *-wor- is replaced by *-sor- in the feminine (cf.
Sanskrit ctasra). Thus, the root was *ket-, to which different suffixes could be added. It is
intriguing to speculate that *ket-wor- may have replaced an earlier form for four, which is
preserved in Anatolian. On the other hand, some have suggested that the original form for the
number four was *Hokto- and that eight was simply the dual of this stem, whose
underlying meaning was two fours (cf. GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:747; Burrow 1973:260).
This suggestion finds support in Kartvelian (cf. Blaek 1999:268). The number four is
reconstructed as *otxo- in Proto-Kartvelian, and this is generally taken to be a loan from Proto-
Indo-European (cf. Klimov 1998:145146; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:269; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1995.I:775 [GamkrelidzeIvanov reconstruct Proto-Kartvelian *(o)t(o)-]). I favor
this explanation and consider *Hokto- to be the original form of the number four in Early
Proto-Indo-European. It was replaced by *meyu- in Anatolian, while, in the Proto-Indo-
European antecedent of the non-Anatolian daughter languages it was replaced by *ket-wor-.
It only survives in the later Proto-Indo-European form for the number eight, *HoktoH(w), a
dual formation originally meaning two fours. No doubt, this replaced an earlier form for the
number eight, which, unfortunately, can no longer be recovered.
One final comment may be made here: in Etruscan, there is a number hu. Its exact
meaning is uncertain it could be six, or it could be four (cf. Cristofani 1991:77; Blaek
1999:235; BonfanteBonfante 2002:9495). If it is six, then the number a is four. On the
other hand, if it is four, then the number a is six. Without going into the whole question here
of whether Etruscan and Proto-Indo-European are ultimately genetically related, we can say that
hu more closely resembles Proto-Indo-European *Hokto- four, while a more closely
resembles Proto-Indo-European *s(w)eks six (Szemernyis reconstruction). As noted by
Blaek (1999:211 and 235) and Briquel (1994:329), support for considering the meaning of hu
to be four comes from the identification of hu in the Pre-Greek name 'Yttqviu for the city
Tetrapolis (Tctpuaoti, composed of tctpu- four and aoti city) in Attica. This may provide
another piece of evidence in support of considering *Hokto- to have been the original form for
the number four in Proto-Indo-European.
The number five was *penke (Brugmann *peqe) in Late Proto-Indo-European. It
is usually identified with words for fist and finger: (1) Proto-Indo-European *pk-sti-
fist > Proto-Germanic *fustiz > West Germanic *fsti- > *fsti- > Old English fst fist;
Old Frisian fest fist; Middle Low German fst fist (Dutch vuist); Old High German fst fist
(New High German Faust) (cf. Mann 19841987:968 *p$stis [*pqstis ?] fist; Onions
1966:358; KlugeMitzka 1967:187; KlugeSeebold 1989:205); Serbian Church Slavic pst
fist; (2) Proto-Indo-European *penk-r- finger > Proto-Germanic *figraz finger >
Gothic figgrs finger; Old Icelandic fingr finger; Old English finger finger; Old Frisian
finger finger; Old Saxon fingar finger; Old High German fingar finger (New High German
Finger) (cf. Feist 1939:150; Lehmann 1986:114; De Vries 1977:120; KlugeMitzka 1967:198;
KlugeSeebold 1989:215). Though not without problems from a phonological point of view,
the above comparisons can hardly be questioned. Ultimately, all of these forms may indeed go
back to a verbal stem *penk- to take in hand, to handle, as suggested by Horowitz (cited by
Blaek 1999:228), though it should be mentioned that this putative verb stem is not attested in
5
any of the daughter languages. Blaek (1999:229) notes that the meanings fist, etc. are
primary.
Several different reconstructions are possible for the Proto-Indo-European word for the
number six: *seks, *sweks, *kseks, *ksweks, *weks (for details, cf. Blaek 1999:234
242; see also Sihler 1995:413). This number was also borrowed by Kartvelian: Proto-Kartvelian
*ekw- six (cf. Klimov 1998:48 *eksw-; FhnrichSardshweladse 1995:125126 *eksw-;
Schmidt 1962:107 *ekw-/*eku; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:775 *ekw-). Sihler (1995:413)
takes *weks (he writes *we#s) to be the original form and considers the initial *s- to be a
secondary development (imported from the number seven) (Szemernyi 1996:222 and Beekes
1995:213 express the same view). Thus, in accordance with Sihlers views, the earliest form of
the Proto-Indo-European number six should be reconstructed as *weks. As Sihler notes, when
*s- was merely added to *weks, the result was *sweks, but when it replaced the initial
consonant, the result was *seks. The Iranian forms pointing to original *ksweks (cf. Avestan
xva six) appear to be due to developments specific to Iranian and should not be projected
back into Proto-Indo-European (cf. Sihler 1995:413).
The Proto-Indo-European word for the number seven, *septi (Brugmann *septi), is
sometimes considered to be a loan from Semitic (cf. Blaek 1999:256257; Gamkrelidze
Ivanov 1995.I:747). That this number is ancient in Indo-European is clear from the fact that it is
found in Hittite.
We have already discussed the number eight. For nine, Proto-Indo-European most
likely had *new (cf. Szemernyi 1996:223). Other possible reconstructions are *newi and
*Hnew/i (cf. Brugmann 1904:365 *ne, *en; Blaek 1999:283 *Hnewi; Meier-Brgger
2003:234 *hn; Watkins 1998:67 *hnw; Haudry 1979:68 *nwi/; Burrow 1973:260;
Sihler 1995:415 *Hnw; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:744 *neu(e)n; Buck 1933:230 [Buck
takes Greek cvvcu to be a blend of *cv+u and *vc+u]; Rix 1992:172 *n).
As noted above, the Proto-Indo-European number ten must originally have been a
compound meaning two hands, that is, *te- two + *ki(t)- hand.
The Proto-Indo-European word for the number hundred is traditionally reconstructed as
*(d)$itm it is usually considered to be a derivative of *de$i(t) ten and meant something
like ten tens (cf. Szemernyi 1996:226; Watkins 1998:67; Meier-Brgger 2003:235; Beekes
1995:213; GamkrelidzeIvanov 1995.I:744).
Though there was probably no common Proto-Indo-European word for thousand, the
form *geslo- served as the basis for the Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Latin terms (cf. Szemernyi
1996:227; Beekes 1995:216; Meier-Brgger 2003:235; Meillet 1964:414; Brugmann 1904:368).
According to Bengtson (1987:260261), this form is to be derived from Proto-Indo-European
*ges- hand (he writes *hes-) plus a suffix *-lo-.
We may now summarize our findings. The numbers one to ten may be reconstructed
as shown below for the earliest stage of Proto-Indo-European. However, inasmuch as Anatolian
corroboration is lacking for several of the numbers, the following reconstructions must be
considered provisional:

1 *Hay- (later *Hoy-), *sem-, *per(H)-/*p3(H)-
2 (earliest form) *te/a-; (later also) *t(u)w-a- (still later *t(u)w-o-), *t(u)w-i-;
though originally a plural form, this was later reinterpreted as a dual.
6
3 *tr-ey-/*tr-i-
4 *Hok-ta- (perhaps with original, non-apophonic -o- in the first syllable) (later
*Hok-to-); replaced by *meyu- four in the Anatolian languages and by
*ket-wor- four-sided, square in the non-Anatolian daughter languages.
5 *penke
6 *weks (later also *sweks ~ *seks)
7 *septi
8 Original unknown; replaced by (dual) *HoktoH(w) two fours = eight in the
non-Anatolian daughter languages.
9 *new
10 *te-ki(t) (original meaning two hands).


References

Adrados, Francisco R[odrguez]
1975 Lingstica indoeuropea [Indo-European Linguistics]. 2 vols. Madrid:
Gredos.
Adrados, Francisco R., Alberto Bernab, and Julia Mendoza
19951998 Manual de lingstica indoeuropea [Handbook of Indo-European
Linguistics]. 3 vols. Madrid: Ediciones Clsicas.
Beekes, Robert S. P.
1987 The Word for Four in Proto-Indo-European, Journal of Indo-European
Studies 15.1/2:215219.
1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Bengtson, John D.
1987 Notes on Indo-European 10, 100, and 1000, Diachronica IV.1/2:
257262.
Benveniste, mile
1962 Hittite et indo-europen [Hittite and Indo-European]. Paris: Adrien-
Maisonneuve.
Blaek, Vclav
1999 Numerals. Comparative-Etymological Analysis and their Implications.
Brno: Masarykova Univerzita v Brn.
Bonfante, Giuliano, and Larissa Bonfante
1983 The Etruscan Language: An Introduction. New York, NY: New York
University Press.
[2002] [Revised edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.]
Briquel, Dominique
1994 trusque et indo-europen [Etruscan and Indo-European], in: Franoise
Bader (ed.), Langues indo-europennes [Indo-European Languages].
Paris: CNRS ditions, pp. 319330.
Brugmann, Karl
7
1904 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Auf
Grund des fnfbndigen Grundri der vergleichenden Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen von K. Brugmann und B. Delbrck [Concise
Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages. Based upon the
Five Volume Elements of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Euro-
pean Languages by K. Brugmann and B. Delbrck]. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter. Reprinted 1970.
Buck, Carl Darling
1933 Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. 10th impression 1966.
Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.
Burrow, Thomas
1973 The Sanskrit Language. 3rd edition. London: Faber & Faber.
Colarusso, John
1992 Phyletic Links between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Northwest
Caucasian, in: Howard I. Aronson (ed.), The Non-Slavic Languages of
the USSR: Linguistic Studies (Second Series). Chicago, IL: Chicago
Linguistic Society, pp. 1954. Reprinted in Mother Tongue 21:820
(1994).
Cristofani, Mauro
1991 Introduzione allo studio delletrusco [Introduction to the Study of
Etruscan]. Leo S. Olschki Editore.
De Vries, Jan
1977 Altnordisches etymologisches Wrterbuch [Old Norse Etymological
Dictionary]. Reprint of 2nd edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Ernout, Alfred, and Antoine Meillet
1979 Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots
[Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language: History of Words]. 4th
edition. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fhnrich, Heinz, and Surab Sardshweladse
1995 Etymologisches Wrterbuch der Kartwel-Sprachen [Etymological Dic-
tionary of the Kartvelian Languages]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Feist, Sigmund
1939 Vergleichendes Wrterbuch der gotischen Sprache [Comparative
Dictionary of the Gothic Language]. 3rd edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV
2004 Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., and Vjaeslav V. Ivanov
1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical
Typological Analysis of a Protolanguage and a Proto-Culture. 2 vols.
English translation by Johanna Nichols. Berlin, New York, NY, and
Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Justus, Carol F.
8
1988 Indo-European Numerals and Numeral Systems, in: Yol L. Arbeitman
(ed.), A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Benjamin Schwartz: Studies
in Anatolian, Italic, and Other Indo-European Languages. Louvain:
Peeters, pp. 521541.
Klimov, G[eorgij] V.
1998 Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages. Berlin and New
York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kluge, Friedrich, and Walther Mitzka
1967 Etymologisches Wrterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological
Dictionary of the German Language]. 20th edition. Berlin and New
York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
Kluge, Friedrich, and Elmar Seebold
1989 Etymologisches Wrterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological
Dictionary of the German Language]. 22nd edition. Berlin and New
York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
Kronasser, Heinz
1956 Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen [Comparative
Phonology and Morphology of Hittite]. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Kuipers, A[ert] H.
1975 A Dictionary of Proto-Circassian Roots. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
Laroche, Emmanuel
1959 Dictionnaire de la langue louvite [Dictionary of the Luwian Language].
Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
1960 Les hiroglyphes hittites [The Hittite Hieroglyphs]. Vol. I. Paris: Centre
International de la Recherche Scientifique.
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1986 A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Luraghi, Silvia
1997 Hittite. Munich: Lincom Europa.
1998 The Anatolian Languages, in: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat
(eds.), The Indo-European Languages. London and New York, NY:
Routledge, pp. 169196.
Mann, Stuart E.
19841987 An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary. Hamburg: Helmut Buske
Verlag.
Markey, Thomas L.
1984 The Grammaticalization and Institutionalization of Indo-European
Hand, Journal of Indo-European Studies 12.3/4:261292.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
19561980 Kurzegefates etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindischen [Short
Etymological Dictionary of Old Indic]. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Meier-Brgger, Michael
2003 Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine
9
1964 Introduction ltude comparative des langues indo-europennes
[Introduction to the Comparative Study of the Indo-European Languages].
University, AL: University of Alabama Press. Reprint of 8th edition
(1937).
Meriggi, Piero
1962 Hieroglyphisch-Hethitisch Glossar [Hieroglyphic Hittite Glossary]. 2nd
edition. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Onions, C. T. (ed.)
1966 The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rix, Helmut
1992 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre
[Historical Grammar of Greek: Phonology and Morphology]. 2nd
edition. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schmidt, Karl Horst
1962 Studien zur Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der sdkaukasischen
Grundsprache [Studies on the Reconstruction of the Sound Structure of
the South Caucasian Parent Language]. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag
Franz Steiner GMBH.
Sihler, Andrew L.
1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York, NY, and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sturtevant, Edgar H.
1933 A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. Baltimore, MD:
Linguistic Society of America.
[1951] [Revised edition. Vol. I. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.]
Szemernyi, Oswald
1960 Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Translated from the 4th
edition (1990) of Einfhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
[Introduction to Comparative Linguistics], with additional notes and
references. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Villar, Francisco
1991 The Numeral two and its Number Marking, in: Perspectives on Indo-
European Language, Culture, and Religion: Studies in Honor of Edgar C.
Polom. McLean, VA: Institute for the Study of Man, vol. 1, pp. 136
154.
Watkins, Calvert
1998 Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and Reconstruction, in: Anna
Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages.
London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 2573.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi