On Proto- Indo- European-*penk^W- ‘hand’

Abstract

This paper expands the evidence and arguments for the view, championed by Franklin E. Horowitz’s contribution to this volume, that *penk^We, the PIE word for ‘five’, is based on a form originally meaning ‘hand’. Horowitz’s view is preliminarily supported by citation of etymological parallels for his analysis of Lat. pignus and propinquus. After discussion of materials submitted by E. Polomé, W. Lehmann, and N. van Brock which show that PIE *penk^We is connected with words expressing a concept of totality, it is concluded that the latter expressions are modeled after a canon of the five fingers (whence various IE pentads), and should go back, like ‘five’, to a word for ‘hand’. As parallel, cf. Pers. dast ‘hand’ = ‘canonical set’. Against van Brock’s reconstruction of *pen-t- and *pen-k^W-as variant forms of an etymon for ‘totality’, I take Gr. pant- and Toch. puk(-)/pont- ‘all’ from *p(o)nk^W-t-*‘pentad’ = ‘totality’; cf. OInd. pdnkti- and Umbrianpunti- < *ponk^W-t-i, and Lat. cunctus < *ponk -t-o-. Finally, *pnek^W- ‘hand’ is confirmed by positing a thematic derivative *ponk^Wo- ‘pertaining to the hand; gestalt of the hand, handful; reflected by Pers. pang ‘cluster of dates’ (cf. Gr. dáktulos ‘finger, date’), and Russian puk, Pol. pęk ‘bundle, bunch (e.g., of flowers), tuft, wisp (of straw); cf. Pers. dast ‘hand’: dasta ‘bundle, bunch of flowers, sheaves or hair, quantity of silk or thread’.