Reconstruction talk:Proto-Uralic/kakteksa

I have little knowledge of Uralic languages and I don't seek to defend the Indo-European theory at all. I'm sure it's probably wrong. It's just that one particular argument does not seem valid to me: namely that "two-ten" could not have meant "eight". Because surely the "ten" element could originally have been in another case form (ablative or whatever) such that it meant "two from ten". And then later on the case form was levelled out. 88.64.225.53 00:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not find that very likely. Since attributes were likely not inflected in Proto-Uralic at all, numerals probably weren't inflected that often in general, and so there would be relatively little reason for a case ending - if there ever was one - to be lost so uniformly in every descendant. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)