About proto-IE oḱtṓw "eight": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/oḱtṓw the dual of a stem *(H)oḱto- (?four fingers?).
This is my theory:
This is my theory:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Arabic numerals I guess are Indo-European as they were devised in India but for the alphabet - so, so wrong. And obviously insanely biased. All products of civilisation were created by ancient Aryans amirite?
Either you are t-rolling or there is a miscommunication going on here...Ok, Aryans did nothing, the cradle of civilization was in Mesopotamia and all other things were invented in India, does it really matter the world's oldest inscriptions have been found in the land of Aryans?! They certainly copied them from either Mesopotamia or India, they couldn't invent anything!! Would you please tell what they have invented, certainly nothing!
Either you are t-rolling or there is a miscommunication going on here...
Anyway, why are you being so reactionary to ToBeOrNotToBe's response? They simply highlighted a specific bias they found in your post.
There is a point in Old Persian Cuneiform: https://www.omniglot.com/writing/opcuneiform.htm
Persian numbers are: "aiva, duva, si, catwar, panca" but Old Persian cuneiform sign for 4 is "ku", not "ka", so the original language was in all probablity a Centum language, like Hittite or Latin, not Satem. For 6 we also see a word similar to Armenian vec, however it is certainly the original IE word, not the one which begins with sh/s under influence of Semitic.
The Proto-Indo-European reconstruction that is at the basis of this hypothesis is totally amateur and inconsistent not just with modern linguistic research, but also within itself, as it is clearly ad hoc, simply taking the root from some much later Indo-European language branch that will fit into the preconceived idea that one already wants to be true (totally contrary to the scientific method). So you have seri, of clearly "satem" Iranian extraction (when most other IE branches make it clear the root was more like tre/tri-), but ketwar, of "centum" extraction, and epta, which does not even make sense in any IE reconstruction because even Greek would have a /h/ instead of the /s/ found in most other IE branches, and an unattested nor unreconstructed feksa since weksa wouldn't fit properly (and, mind you, the reconstructed form is really sweks, but again that inconvenient /s/ would spoil the fun, right?)... A mixed bag. As in every other post, there is a clear sense of wishful thinking and confirmation bias in which wrong premises and, when one could not find proper evidences to confirm the hypothesis, fabricated "evidences" (such as a PIE reconstruction that makes no sense in historical and comparative linguistics) serve to "prove" something that the author is already fully convinced that must be true.
This thread has been viewed 6776 times.