Hello Cicognac! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- zzuuzz(talk)23:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proto-Baltic *pirmas cannot come from *pírˀwas. Proto-Baltic form *pirmas traces back to PIE *pṛmos (source: Zinkevičius, Zigmas (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija: lietuvių kalbos kilmė. Vol. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 216.). Bernard Comrie writes:"Baltic forms are particularly close to Germanic forms, because they are made with the suffix *-mo; Slavic languages here have a different suffix (*-v). Baltic forms come from *pr̥̄'mo- <...>" (in Lithuanian: "Bl. formos artimos ypač germ. formoms, nes padarytos su priesaga *-mo; sl. kalbos čia turi kitokią priesagą (*-v). Bl. formos kilę iš *pr̥̄'mo- "; source: Database of the etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language). Wiktionary is not as reliable a source as the arguments of recognized linguists. Proto-Slavic *pьrvъ and Proto-Baltic *pirmas is a case where these two forms cannot be reduced to one proto-form (different suffixes). In this article it would be better to abandon the Proto-Balto-Slavic examples. Ed1974LT (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can add the PIE intermediate form both in the article and in Wiktionary and put the source (I couldn't find this form anywhere, I noticed an unexplained -m-). Otherwise, you can erase PBS form of numbers if they are problematic and work on them later. As a third solution, you can give me a good source that reconstructs basic numbers in PBS (1-10 is enough) so that I can handle the matter immediately (now I'm free). By the way, nice to meet you! Cicognac (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to meet you too. I made a compromise change, check it out. I have a question about the Proto-Balto-Slavic forms *šeśtas and *aśmas. The first one starts with š, and the second one is without t. V. Mažiulis reduces two Baltic roots *seš- and *uš- to one form *su̯eš-.
If you are referring to the two version of number 6 in Proto-Baltic, probably it depends by the fact that scholars argue about the PIE version of number 6: most of them posit an inizial *s-, some don't. Perhaps the scholar you quote followed only the PIE version of number 6 with initial *s-. This is the most common reconstruction, by the way, so I decided to erase the one without initial *s-.
As for the number 8 (remodelled after number 7), I found the PB reconstruction without -t-, which leads to PB forms already without -t- which in turn becomes e.g. 'asmas' in Lithuanian. I did another check (this time deeper and longer), after a lot of research I was finally able to find a synonym in Lithuanian, 'astuntas'. Nobody pointed out this synonym, maybe it's rarer and could lead to a conservative PB form with medial -t-. Thus, medial -t- can be put between round brackets. Cicognac (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I added medial -t- and added both versions of ordinal "eighth" in Lithuanian, now the question should be settled. Medial -t- is correct if 'asmas' is a contracted version of 'astuntas' (I think so, see also ordinal number "seventh" in Lithuanian. 'Sekmas' from 'Septintas' sounds like a contraction, hence a later version, but a reserach can definitely confirm this). As for number one, by reviewing again PS, I can confirm that PBS probably had a synonym with medial -m-, preserved in PB. Hence, I put each derivation both in PS and PB. Cicognac (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the number 6, the problem is that in PBS it should start with an s, not an š.
Vladimir Toporov writes: "Celtic forms with -t-, as in other languages, allow us to reconstruct the Balto-Slavic source - *ok̑tmo- > aš(t)ma-".[1]
Lithuanian septintas, aštuntas were created from cardinal numbers aštuon-i, septyn-i on the model of šeš-tas, devin-tas with the suffix -tas.
Ok, I'll disambiguate the derivation both here and in the Wikitionary, many of the things we discussed together were missing. If you noticed, I'm already editing. How I wish I could understand Lithuanian :)
If you have nice materials on PB, you can give them to me, especially articles and etymological dictionaries with reconstructions. There is almost nothing about PB in the Wiktionary. By contrast, there are tons and tons of reconstruction in PS, which is shameful and frustrating. Cicognac (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can they be translated into English? If I can copy and paste them, I can try to understand something. If it's something mechanical, eg. adding etymologies and reconstructions, this is an easy task.
As for number 6, I checked again the PBS sounds inventory together with Ruki sound law, by which *š- can be derived in PBS. Yes, it must start with *s- since PIE *s becomes *š- only after *w, NOT before *w. I'll correct the initial consonant now. Cicognac (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. The book you gave can be copied and pasted. I can try to take some PB reconstructions from them. I have a Latvian friend who could try to find something in internet about PB reconstructions, why not asking her later?
By the way, while investigating more about cardinal number 6 (to decide whether or not to amend it), I found out that it probably has 2 versions in PBS: one with *š-, due to assimilation to final -š (leading to Proto-Slavic *š-), and another with *s- which leads to the Proto-Baltic regular version with *s- due to ruki sound law. I can put this second version with a question mark in the end and, again, disambiguate the two different reflexes in order to avoid confusion. Cicognac (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z. Zinkevičius reconstructs the PB *dešimts '10', which was declined as a root noun (and not *dešimt-i-s). The relicts of the root declension were yet preserved in Old Lithuanian: dešimtes 'lots of ten' (nominative pl.), dešimtų (genitive pl.), cf. i-stem declention dešimtys, dešimčių.[2]
"*uštas" is based on a speculation on a possible PIE original form and its reflex in Old Prussian through Late PB *uštas (< Early PB *sueštas). I can repost it, but a question mark is DEFINITELY needed here since the original PIE form is not widely accepted, as I stated before. I have already disambiguated this theory by Deversen in Wiktionary on purpose... Cicognac (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
