Re: [tied] Catching up again...

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:03:04 GMT, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>It's obvious that the Kartvelian word is foreign of course. I also see how
>it's tempting to connect it with IE through a hypothetical variant *weks.
>Yet, if we look at the overall pattern, numbers above "five" seem to all
>have Semitoid origins in Kartvelian. Why should "six" be any different?

Because the patterns that count here are linguistical, not numeric (it
so happens the IE loans adhere to the pattern {x: | 5 - x | = 1})

>Think for a moment here. What would be a really valid reason for the loss of
>*s- within IE when speaking of *sweks? Some use the process of dissimilation
>but I don't know of many words that work like this in IE

As explained: *(y)us < *swesw "you (pl.)".

>>And this is characteristic of the IE words for "six". It would be
>>highly unlikely that such a peculiar development would have occurred
>>both in IE and in Kartvelian independently. Therefore, PK borrowed it
>>from IE.
>
>This is largely _not_ characteristic of the IE words for "six" which more
>often contain the *s-, as expected based on the Semitic form. Yes, clearly,
>the loss of *s- is _not_ independent within IE and Kartvelian. There was
>some kind of mutual interference for sure, but I would say that it was
>Kartvelian's doing - certain neighbouring IE dialects borrowed it from
>Kartvelian.

Neighbouring, such as Lithuanian and Old Prussian?

>Why must it be Akkadian? Is a change of -m- to -w- attested in Akkadian or
>Assyrian?

Yes, indirectly (cuneiform orthography being what it is). Words with
etymological *w started being written with MV(C)-signs.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...