Proto-Germanic *fingraz ‘finger’ – long connected to PIE *penkʷe ‘5’, but without a convincing derivational scenario – can be interpreted as *pēnkʷ-ro-, a genitival R(V)-o- vrddhi derivative to *penkʷerom ‘set of 5’. This latter form is the substantivization of *penkʷero- ‘5-fold, counting 5’ – a form belonging to a series of de-numeral adjectives which, it is argued, is the single type underlying the Baltic pluralia tantum numerals (Lith. penkeri ‘5.pl.tant’) and the Slavic collectives and distributives (PSl. *petero ‘group of 5’, *peterъ ‘5-fold’). It is further hypothesized that (Post-)PIE forms like *penkwero-, *sweḱsero-, *septmmero- need not rest upon false segmentation of a thematic derivative of ‘4’ (*kwetwer-o-), as is most commonly assumed; rather, they can be explained as simple thematic derivatives of an *-er locative of the type *penkʷer ‘in/on/at 5’ = ‘in a group of 5’ (a close parallel of this semantic relationship is provided by Lith. arch. trisu ‘3.loc’ = ‘in a group of 3’, or even by French a trois). The posited type *penkʷer also yields a back-formed substantive *penkʷōr ‘set of 5-s’, a possible source of the Tocharian B distributive numerals in -ār (piśār ‘by 5-s’ << *penkʷōr-en, *penkʷōr-i or similar), which – being athematic – cannot be explained via the standard theory starting from *kʷetwer-o-.

中文翻译：

---

“五”：日耳曼语的“手指”，*-ero 中的波罗地语-斯拉夫非数字形容词 - 以及它们的印欧背景

原始日耳曼语 *fingraz 'finger' - 与 PIE *penkʷe '5' 长期相连，但没有令人信服的派生场景 - 可以解释为 *pēnkʷ-ro-，*penkʷerom 的生殖器 R(V)-o- vrddhi 派生词'一套 5'。后一种形式是 *penkʷero-'5-fold，count 5' 的实体化——一种属于一系列非数字形容词的形式，据认为，它是波罗的海复数 tantum 数字（Lith. penkeri '5.pl.tant'）和斯拉夫集体和分配（PSl. *petero 'group of 5', *peterъ '5-fold'）。进一步假设，像 *penkwero-、*sweḱsero-、*septmmero- 这样的 (Post-)PIE 形式不需要依赖于 '4' (*kwetwer-o-) 的主题派生词的错误分割，这是最常见的假设; 相当，它们可以解释为 *penkʷer 'in/on/at 5' = 'in a group of 5' 类型的 *-er 处所的简单主题派生词（Lith. arch 提供了这种语义关系的近似平行。 trisu '3.loc' = 'in a group of 3'，甚至是法语中的 a trois）。假定类型 *penkʷer 也产生一个后形成的实体 *penkʷōr 'set of 5-s'，这是-ār（piśār 'by 5-s' << *penkʷōr-en, * penkʷōr-i 或类似的），它是无神论的，不能通过从 *kʷetwer-o- 开始的标准理论来解释。