zompist bboard

The formation of *dek^j-m-t with respect to *dk^j-m-t-om resembles that of the so called amphikinetic accent-ablaut type (like *pent-oh2-s / *pnt-h2-es). The two must be root related not by k^jmt but by dek^j- . (Moreover, I wouldn't even expect a root of k^jmt to exist, but rather a k^jnt- instead....

Actually, the /d/ in these forms is not directly reconstructable - the IE languages point to forms *wi( : )k^j(o)mt-, *tri(H)k^j(o)mt-, *k^jmt-om. When it comes to the d-element, it might be attested from lithuanian tukstandi- "one thousand" where the -kst- were presumably how the cluster -sdk^j- o...

The argument about new had to do with the presumption of original binary numeral system.

I don't mean a relation of the kind like déik^j-e/o- -> dik^j-tó-. But possibly a more distant one.

k^j stands here for PIE palatalized velar. 1) Sihler and Beekes give the PIE forms as follows respectively : ten < *dek^jm(t) / *dek^jmt twenty < *widk^j(o)mt- / *dwidk^jmt- thirty < *tridk^j(o)mt- / *trih2dk^jmt- hundred < *dk^jmt-om / *dk^jmt-om Moreover, Sihler provides *tusdk^j(o)mt- for one tho...