REVIEW OF ALEXIS MANASTER RAMER'S
"SOME BORROWED NUMERALS IN PROTO-KARTVELIAN"
by Patrick C. Ryan
9115 West 34th Street
Little Rock, AR 72204
(501) 227-9947
March 1996
Professor Alexis Manaster Ramer concludes his article by modestly saying: "We are very far
from being able to say the last word on the subject", a sentiment with which I can heartily agree.
Actually, I find the article marred by strange terminology, inadequate research, and flawed logic; points I will detail in the course of this review.
The theme, which might conceivably have been candidly included in the title of this article, is borrowing.
Professor Ramer borrows the research of Van Ginneken, Frei, Klimov, Pisani, and Winter, which purports to show that the Proto-Kartvelian etymon for the numeral "4", which he "posits" as
*os1tx- ("or perhaps os1txw- or *os1txo"), was borrowed
from Proto-Indo-European. Since "posit" means "put forward as fact or truth", I am sure that he
is sure that one of these forms is factual but slightly at a loss to know which one of them he
actually "posits".
We are not given a time-frame for this borrowing so we cannot really form a judgment about the
necessity or desirability for speakers of Proto-Kartvelian to borrow a word for "4". Perhaps herds were very small in the PK homeland; and wealth was unknown (because uncountable!)
How shall we imagine the situation to have been? A people with a developed language who had
no need to count? Or should we think that the PIE term for "4" struck them as more expressive?
Or should we suspect, as I do, that phonetically related terms for semantically related concepts
are most easily explained by a common relationship, i.e. origin?
Allan R. Bomhard (and John C. Kerns) in The Nostratic Macrofamily (1994) — and in
other works — has made a prima facie case for the derivation of PK from Nostratic, which also produced IE and Afroasian (AA). This possibility was not discussed or was allusion made to it.
Before borrowing is assumed, I would think that common origin needs to be ruled out.
Next, Ramer denies the possibility of a metathesis of -k^t- in PIE *ok^to:(u)-, "eight" to -tx- in
the PK form *os1tx-, "four", putting aside for the moment the discrepancy in
meaning. Since metathesis usually involves consonant shifts that facilitate pronunciation — and
in any language, -k^t- is probably going to be easier to pronounce than -tx- — Ramer is most
certainly correct.
The PK *os1tx(w/o)- produces Georgia and Mingrelian otx-, Laz o(n)txo-, otxu-,
and Svan woštx(w)-, all meaning "4".
The first very obvious characteristic of the PK forms quoted is that Svan, which seems to be
showing the least modified form, can be reconstructed with -(w)-; and that Laz -u- points in the
same direction.
Strangely (inadvertently?), the PIE form is never cited in this article in the form appearing in
Pokorny (1922): ok^to:(u), showing a (n optional) -u that invariably represents PIE /w/ even though Ramer must be dimly aware of it because he cites Old Indian aSTau (sic!), in which he
fails to indicate the long and accented a(á:).
Indeed, it is never made clear in the article why Ramer "posits" *os1tx- as the PK
form, i.e. without the -w when the normal procedure is to assume the full form is the original
form (Klimov's os1txw-), or is this something Ramer "posits" also?
There is, of course, a further totally neglected anomaly: the sporadic appearance of (n) in Laz
o(n)txo-. No discussion of sporadic appearances of non-cognate -n- in Svan can be discovered in the article; and we should expect, at the minimum, that notice was taken of it.
By the normal rule, the full attested form is the original form, we might reconstruct PK
*o(n)s1txw- based on the attestations cited in the article.
There is no problem with adding an -n- to the IE form, although it is nowhere attested in IE
because a) a pattern of deletion of the nasal feature of dorsal nasals is abundantly apparent: e.g. IE 2. ank-, ang-, bend, shows Old Indian ańcati and ácati, bends, curves; a root, from which
Greek agkó:n, bend (of the knee, shoulder), elbow, is derived.
This last citation is of more than casual interest when we acknowledge (as Ramer does not
explicitly do) that the expected rationale for number terminology is the configuration of the hand or fingers used in finger-counting, or alternatively, the body part touched (body-counting).
I do not know if Ramer is familiar with Georges Ifrah's One to Zero (1985), which
explains these matters in satisfying detail.
Although the only thing we know about PIE and PK and AA and Nostratic finger-counting is
what we can learn from analysis of the terminology, we can see in Ifrah that the Torres Strait Islanders used the shoulder as a body-counting touch-point for "8" while the Elemas of New
Guinea used the elbow similarly.
On page 28 of his fascinating book (and I recommend it to Ramer), examples of various
finger-counting methods are illustrated.
Illustration A-4 shows one method of finger-counting in which the little finger is bent while all
other fingers are extended; it designates "4".
Interestingly, PIE has another root which is listed as wek-, we-n-k-, bend, in Pokorny, from
which Old Indian váńcati, goes crookedly or slopingly, is derived.
Both these Old Indian examples show palatal dorsal (nasal) consonants; and please note that I
prefer dorsal to indicate consonants articulated by the contact of the dorsum to a particular part
of the mouth, usually the palate or the velum.
I am somewhat surprised by Ramer's characterization of PIE "*(sic! Are these somehow to be
considered roots???)/k', g', g'h/" as "palatovelars". They are palatal dorsal stops else why would the tick (') be there? Ramer may not be aware that the term "palatovelar" was originally created
to describe dorsals which often were pronounced with either one of two contact points: the palate or the velum.
Now there are points which Ramer makes that seem defensible; I do not think many will have a
problem with reconstructing PK s1t as the cluster underlying the Kartvelian
manifestations but the assertion of Ramer that the PK form, which I believe is correctly
reconstructed as *wos1tx(w)-, is to be derived from Akkadian hamištu, "5", is the
pure fantasy of an investigator who is determined to account for every similarity through
borrowing, whatever the offense to common sense.
The two paragraphs purporting to explain how Akkadian hamištu, "5", is really to be interpreted
as phonetically representing "[hawitu] or [xawitu]" will not satisfy any AAist or even general
linguist; and trite examples like "Thus, innovative English spellings like lite and nite do not
indicate that the words light [lait] and night [nait] have suddenly acquired a final vowel" will
strike many readers of a journal devoted to philology as condescending and completely
unconvincing.
Then, in another round of borrowing frenzy, Ramer tells us that the PKs borrowed "PIE *g'lHV-,
daughter-in-law, sister-in-law'...(as) PK *-j1al-, and...PIE *mlg'-, milk' (itself a
loanword from Semitic)...as PK *mL1j1e- milk'."
One can only wonder what (perhaps totally unattested) language may have been the original
lender for these ubiquitous borrowings.
Now, Ramer candidly informs us that "The semantic mismatch between '4' and '8' also calls for
some comment".
Bear in mind, he has told us on the previous page that "PK *xus1t- '5',...comes
directly or indirectly from a form like Akkadian hamištu".
I would think that the "semantic mismatch" between "4", the previously assigned meaning for
Ramer's PK *xus1t-, and his sudden assignment of the meaning "5" to the same
word "calls for some comment" also. But, unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of Ramer's
arguments for this sudden (and quite unexpected) transformation.
I say unexpected' because Ramer now launches into a paragraph or so on the relationship of "4"
and "8"; perhaps, "5" was just a wayward thought which may better have remained lost.
Ramer borrows from Henning the idea that Avestan "ašti 'width of four fingers'" may be the
singular form (as a hypothetical "4") for "PIE *ok^to:- as the dual of two (sic!): a hypothetical *ok^t-"; and then borrows from Johnson the idea that PIE "*penkwe '5',...denoted the whole
fist", for which he claims to have found comparative support in Uralic and Altaic.
In view of Old Indian ásthi-, "bone" and Avestan ast(i)-, "leg, bone", the probable source of
Avestan ašti is as a variant derivation from PIE ost(h)-, "bone". Four fingers is about the width of
my leg. But, in any case, where is the (n) of Laz?
In the next paragraph, Ramer asserts that "all PK numerals above '3' are loanwords from
Indo-European or Semitic", basing this rather wide claim on work which he has "(submitted)".
Perhaps "submitted" is somehow a higher status of work than "manuscript" although I am not
aware of the distinction. But if the reasoning is comparable to that which we see in this article, I
am afraid that "manuscript" may be the appropriate designation.
Let us review. Ramer has told us that PK borrowed from PIE the base form "*ok't-", which he
assumes on no evidence that I can see, meant *four, presumably at a time when PIE employed it
for "4". Somehow or other, the PK form, which is borrowed from PIE, "came directly from a
form like Akkadian hamištu", which meant "5".
Well, which came first — the Akkadian or the PIE?
It seems to be "4" of one and "5" of another. I confess I am not able to riddle out the meaning of
these seemingly contradictory statements. Perhaps Ramer will submit a response to clarify matters for us all.
Next, Ramer tells us rather authoritatively that "the */x/ of PK *os1tx- has (sic!!!)
to be a reflex of a PIE laryngeal" but the laryngeal in *ok'toH- represents the very dual suffix
which is assumed to be responsible for the meaning "8".
Ramer's answer for this high hurdle that would have halted many a less talented jumper to
conclusions is to "assume that the meanings '4' and '8' were interchanged in PK".
I do not believe that many readers will find this probable; and I, personally, find it incredible as
an explanation for a relationship that is founded on so many other apparent contradictions.
Something aside from fact that 2 x 4 = 8 must be presented for this thesis to have any merit.
I have read exchanges between Ramer and Bomhard on electronic discussion lists in which
Ramer "deplores" Bomhard's wrong ideas" about Nostratic but having read this article, I can
only hope that Ramer relents and reads Bomhard's work, which shows a more realistic approach
to interlanguage comparisons than is shown here.
The only thing that I find almost inexcusable is Ramer's failure to identify Ramer cited "*penkwe 5'"; and, although he overlooked the usually reconstructed (u) of
*ok^to:(u)-, which actually supported his abortive comparison (-u of Laz otxu; -(w) of Svan woštx(w)), surely he is aware of the (u) of IE *dwo:(u), "two". Would he expect assume to
assume that *dwo:(u) is the dual of a totally unattested *dwo, "*one"; or perhaps "penkwe" is the
dual of an unattested *penk, "two-and-a-half"?
Well, I think it is clear that Ramer's article has not moved me to conviction.
Since I have also discussed matters with Ramer electronically, I will do what Ramer failed to do
(in my opinion) in our discussions, and offer up my own interpretation of the facts to the
sacrificial knife of Ramer's sharp wit.
Nostratic is a reconstructed language that is the antecedent of IE, AA, and (P)K, as Bomhard as
shown in many publications over many years.
The relationships among the words discussed is not borrowing but derivation from Nostratic
roots that were, at least, originally common to all.
We should expect differences in numeral terminology because counting methods were subject to
preference and improvement.
The (P)K term for "4", correctly reconstructed as *wo(n)s1tx(w) is based on a
Nostratic *wank(y)-, "bend" (IE *wenk^-); and tells us that the Kartvelian-speakers used a
finger-counting method that involved the bending of one finger to indicate "4".
The -t of the PK is Nostratic -t and IE -t, a former of ordinal from cardinal and collective
numerals. The final -(w) is probably Nostratic -*wa, a suffix indicating numerals generally.
I cannot, at present, offer a reasonable suggestion for the significance of (P)K -x- but I do accept
the possibility that it may represent a guttural (which I will not specifiy as laryngal or pharyngal)
that is reponsible for length of o: in IE *ok^to:u and *dwo:u, with a significance that remains to
be determined.
The IE word for "8", *ok^to:u is composed of the same final elements as the (P)K but the first
element is seen in IE 2. *ank(^)-, *ang(^)-, bend (Nostratic *ank(y)), indicating a body-counting
method for IE, and designating either the 'elbow' or the 'shoulder'.
However, the Nostratic root underlying (P)K wo(n)s1txu- may be present in IE also
but in a disguised form and with a different meaning.
Ifrah illustrates the body-counting system of the Torres Strait Islanders, and shows the (right)
wrist as "6", which is also "6" for the Papuans and Elemas.
Though "6" is usually reconstructed as *swek^s, there are some IE languages which show
*wek^(s) : *uk^(s): e.g. Armenian vec. and Greek héx.
To judge by Armenian gangur, "flexus", IE *we-n-k-, "bend", may have once designated the
"bendable" joint of the wrist though the -s remains to be explained (perhaps as a multiplicative
suffix). I ask no one to accept this purely speculative suggestion.
I am not saying that IE exclusively had a terminology for numerals based on body-counting since
I see traces of finger-counting in other numerals but I assert that Proto-Language "1" and "2"
were also part of a body-counting system: PL na, "nostril", "1 (of two)"; and PL fa, "palm", "2" (possibly also PL no, "abdomen", "nine?"). IE oi-no(s), "1" is based on a simple combination of
PL ?e-$e, "that (yonder)" + na, "1", while Old Indian e:ka, "one" is simply PL ?e-$e, "that
(yonder)" + khe, "other" + fa, "two, number".
Ramer's exercise here is a perfect example of what mischief can be perpetrated when someone
who should know better substitutes assumption for analysis and imagines borrowing where only
genetic relationship exists.
Pat Ryan
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bomhard, Allan R. and John C. Kerns. 1994. The Nostratic Macro-family A Study in Distant
Linguistic Relationship. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 74. Berlin, New York
City: Mouton de Gruyter
Gardiner, Sir Alan. 3rd edition, revised 1973. Egyptian Grammar: being an Introduction to the
Study of the Hieroglyphs. London: Oxford University Press
Ifrah, Georges. 1985. From One to Zero: A Universal History of Numbers. (translation of
Histoire Universelle des Chiffres) New York: Viking Penguin, Inc.
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Volume I. Bern and
Munich: Francke Verlag
Ryan, Patrick C. 1990. Pre-Nostratic "Pronouns" Early Noun Substitutions. Mother Tongue
11, September 1990.
1993. An Inquiry or Thought Paper. Mother Tongue 19, Spring 1993.
1994. Proto-Language "He" and "It" IE -l/-n Nouns. Dhumbadji! Vol. 1, No.
4. Winter 1994.
1996. Merritt Ruhlen's Two Books on Language Origins. (Review). Eurasian
Studies Yearbook. Vol. 68 (1996). Berlin, Bloomington, London, Paris, and Toronto: Eurolingua
additional copies of this file are available at HTTP://WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/proto-language/critique-PKNumerals.htm 72204-4441 * (501)227-9947 PROTO-LANGUAGE@msn.com