Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/tuHsont-

I don't think I believe in this one
Is this a verb employing the participle suffix -ent? I would think the Germanic form is a compound with the second element being from dkmtom, as in the Slavic words for 200, 300, etc. Atomic  PIE roots with 5 consonants don't exist so this needs an explanation. I admit I don't really get where Baltic comes from unless they just loaned it from pre Germanic. Lollipop (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * that said, *tuHsont doesn't explain the Baltic very well either ... where did the k come from? Lollipop (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The k in the Baltic comes from the balto slavic glottal stop which comes from the PIE "H" sound.--83.142.57.33 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This does not convince me since glottalization is not usually reflected as a stop in the Baltic languages; furthermore there needs to be explained the /t/ in the /kst/ of the Baltic forms. Perhaps the best assessment is that the Baltic languages have remodelled this word, but why and on which basis remains obscure. 2001:638:A07:132:FFFF:198B:47F7:546 09:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dubious: Did *tuHsont actually mean exactly 1,000?
In episode 20 of "The History of English Podcast", they state that there was no word in early Germanic (and hence PIE) for exactly 10 hundreds, but that the original word meant "several hundred", which could be a bit bigger or smaller than a thousand. However, this page gives the impression that *tuHsont meant exactly 10 hundred, which is in contradiction with what the podcast says. I'm not sure what his exact source is, but there's a resources page here: https://historyofenglishpodcast.com/resources/ -Ramzuiv (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We need academic sources that discuss this, rather than random podcasts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It means exactly 1000 in all the Germanic and Baltic reflexes. If it didn't mean exactly 1000 it needs to be demonstrated with evidence. 2607:FEA8:4B81:1214:E934:9A2E:FA97:F046 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it is 10000 in Tocharian I am a Green Bee (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

H
Which H does tuHsont have? Was it h1 h2 or h3? Maybe it's the h4 which people are debating does it exist or not

Failure of RUKI law
One point which renders this etymology dubious is the failure of the RUKI law to be applied in the Balto-Slavic descendants, and this cannot be attributed to the intervening laryngeal since in other cases PIE *uHs regularly yields PBSl. *ūš, e.g. PIE *muHs- ‘mouse’ > PBSl. *mūšis ‘id.’. Perhaps (pre-)PBSl. borrowed the word from (pre-)PG after the completion of the RUKI law in the former? 2001:638:A07:132:FFFF:198B:47F7:546 09:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * if that was the case then it would be more logical to borrow it as *tūsandis and not *tūsantis Muonium777 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Finnic borrowings from Baltic (tuhat <- *tušante-) appear to be RUKIed, unless it's borrowed from Germanic (early Proto-Finnic borrowed Proto-Germanic s/z as š). --84.250.144.147 21:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)