Let me know your thoughts in the comments

​

At what point do two languages stop being dialects, are there specific parameters that distinguish a language from a dialect, like I know the Chinese government considers the Chinese languages dialects of each other to maintain the perception of a homogeneous nation, but at what point did say French and Italian stop being dialects and become two independent languages?

Indo-European Roots Reconsidered 179: *H2ak^ -> *H2ok^to(i)H1 ‘eight’ (Draft)

Sean Whalen (stlatos@yahoo.com)
October 13, 2026

-

The PIE number *Hok^toH ? > Sanskrit aṣṭā́ \ aṣṭáu 'eight', aśītí- f. 'eighty' has a disputed reconstruction. Greek words beginning with ogdo- are claimed to be ev. for *Hok^tH3- since H3 caused p > b in *pipH3- > *pibH3- 'drink'. However, some other H's also seem to cause voicing (no regularity), like *kH2apro-s 'male goat' > OI gabor. Since no *H of any type seems to exist in *septm > G. hebd-, there must have been analogy between '7' & '8' anyway (which no way to know which came first), and voicing before a nasal is common in G. dialects (as also Slavic *se(b)dm-, etc.). Its match with the dual endings -ā́ \ -áu is suggestive that it once meant '4 (dual) > 8'. Though S. -au is unexplained in standard theory (leading some to rec. *-w in PIE), Khoshsirat & Byrd (2018, 2023) argue that IIr. had *oH > *oHW (or similar), with *-HW > *-w. I have additional evidence of *CW (https://www.academia.edu/127709618).

-
All of this would not lead to finding any IE root, since H1o-, H2o-, H3o- are all assumed as possible (I don't think the lack of *howt' in Armenian is significant, since no regularity of *H > h vs. *H > 0 is clear). The ending as dual would also be supported if PIE had *d(u)wo(i)H1 '2', *dwi(H1)+; *Hok^to(i)H1 '2', *Hok^ti(H1)+ (with optional loss of i & u (or y & w) next to H, no regularity, common in verb roots like *da(i)H2- 'distribute') as the cause of S. aśī-tí- (from *aśtītí- with t-t dsm.). Václav Blažek in "Indo-European numerals":

>

Analyzing older etymologies including Brugmann's assumption (fn.101), Szemerényi (1960: 60-62) presented his own scenarío. He derived aši:tí- via haplology from *aši:-šati-, similarly as sastí- "60" from *šaš-šati. The vowel -i:- is explained by the influence of "30" and "40", .. He also assumed a loss of -t- via dissimilation...

>

-
What word would it be the dual of? In the past, Avestan ašti- 'the breadth of four fingers' has been the main contender. Blažek had a long discussion, & the main points are described by Piotr Gąsiorowski (https://langevo.blogspot.com/2014/09/word-of-month-proto-indo-european-four.html):

>

The Core IE numeral 'eight' is certainly a dual form, which makes it likely that the corresponding singular meant 'four' (at least approximately) at some point. It's a thematic dual, so the stem without the dual inflection is *Hoḱto-. Avestan ašti- means the breadth (not the length) of four fingers (= one "palm"). I-stem nouns parallel to o-stems of adjectival origin are common in Indo-European. The "index" of the initial laryngeal is hard to detemine if the root vocalism is *o. One popular hypothesis is that the word is derived from *h₂aḱ- 'be sharp, sharpen' and somehow connected with *h₂oḱetah₂ 'harrow, rake', with reflexes in several branches. The semantics, however ('an implement with sharp tines' → 'the four fingers of a hand'), is a little convoluted.

>

-
I see no problem with the semantics, & in favor of *H2ok^ti- 'sharp thing?' Blažek listed a group including Greek ἄκαινα \ ákaina 'spike, prick, goad; ten foot rod, used as a measure; square measure of 100 ft used in Egypt'. The 'measure' sense being primary is not even needed, since point > pointer (finger), etc., are known. Sharp tines can also be called 'fingers', and 'point(ed) > nail' is also not possible (though apparently unneeded). A word for 'tine, finger' like *H2ok^(e)to- (for -to- & -eto-, see Blažek) forming a word *H2ok^ti- 'group of fingers' (4 = fingers, no thumb) with dual *H2ok^to(i)H1 '8' certainly seems possible. Blažek also noted that many similar measures in IIr. ended in -sti-, so even *H2ok^(e)to- ->*H2ok^t-sti- >*H2ok^tti- > *H2ok^ti- is possible (no other ev. for this or similar clusters in old IE words).

-
Blažek also gave ev. from external (?) comparison (or loans) in "Kartvelian *otxo- (Fáhnrich), or *o(š)tx(w)- "4" (Gamkrelidze), probably represents a borrowing of (late) Indo-European *ok^to- or early Indo-Iranian *oc'to- > *as'ta-, continuing in Avestan ašti- "breadth of four fingers". It certainly looks like *H2ok^to- > *xos^to > *os^txo (or similar). It would not be alone, as he added, "There are also remarkable parallels in Kartvelian: Georgian p'irw-el- "first" (Klimov 1986:198), p'irmšo- (*p'ir-m-šwe-) "first-bom" = Old Indie pu:rva-su:- id. (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984: 597, fn. 2, 878). They have been explained as borrowings from some unspecified Indo-European dialect (Klimov) oř directly from the Indo-European proto-language (Gamkrelidze)." Why they would need to borrow IE numbers is unknown, but not impossible. However, many other Kartvelian words also look IE (https://www.academia.edu/166167744), so some might be native.