DDeden Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've reconstructed the Ancient Malay, based on
> Austronesian, Indonesian, Philippine comparisons.
> Doesn't it appear that Malay should be in the
> neighborhood of Oscan and Lycia? I think so.

I don't think so at all. First of all, your reconstruction of "Ancient Malay" is impressionistic and demonstrably incorrect. Forms like "triga" or "palmpa" are not justified by any data I know of. Secondly, Austronesian is a vast language family, much larger than IE, and it isn't enough to compare word-lists in a few selected languages to reconstruct anything. Thirdly, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. The Proto-AN numerals have already been reconstructed:

1. *esa
2. *duSa
3. *telu
4. *Sepat
5. *lima
6. *enem
7. *pitu
8. *walu
9. *siwa
10.*sapuluq

Vague and superficial similarities like Malay "empat" vs. Oscan "petora" are deceptive, as usual. Oscan is an Italic language in which the sound *kW (preserved as "qu" in Latin), changed into /p/ (cf. Latin "quinque" but Oscan "pompe"). The Oscan numeral '4' developed regularly out of Proto-IE *kwetwores (is THAT similar to Proto-AN *Sepat?).