Re: EAK numerals

On 5/21/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> "Two" is also a bit problematic. The ancient word was duó or duô (δυό,
> δυώ) according to dialect. In the earliest Greek it was declined with
> dual endings, but even from Homeric times there was a tendency towards
> making the word indeclinable. In Classical Attic and the Koine it was
> indeclinable δυό.
Are you sure? I thought it was paroxytone, i.e. δύο (dúo).

Though Modern Greek has both δύο and δυό (δυο in monotonic), I thought
the former was closer to the original pronunciation, being a
pseudo-learned borrowing, while the letter showed the regular
palatalisation of "native" MG words (it's one syllable, something like
[Dj\O]; compare both μία ['mia] and μια [mJa]).

> 6 eksá  [ancient (h)eks is normally indeclinable, but a rare dative
> plural _eksási_ is attested]
Oxytone?

> 8 oktå  [the ancient word is oktô, but this is rarely compounded. Nearly
> all compounds begin okta-, including _oktápous_ "octopus"; our English
> form is derived from the Latinized form of the Greek]
This came out looking like a-ring, though I've seen odd characters in
e-mail messages from you before, where my browser (or more likely
Gmail) second-guessed the character set and thought it was Latin-2 or
something else). I presume you meant oktá with acute.

> 100 = ekató  (εκατό  <-- AG εκατόν)
Not something with ekatont- such as ekatónto? I thought the combining
form usually had -nt- in it (e.g. ISTR a word εκατοντάρχης
_(h)ekatontárxès_).

> 1000 = xília (AG χίλια - neuter plural)
> 10000 = múria (μύρια)
And I wonder whether these should take the "regular" adjective ending
-o, rather than continuing a plural. But I'm not sure about this -- if
the adjective was essentially always used in the plural, it would make
sense for the plural ending to fossilise.

As for the other numbers, I'll wait until I get home to my
dictionaries to comment.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Reply