Torsten:
>I repeat: in which case they would be non-Semitic numerals
>nunated/mimated in a Semitic (Para-Semitic?) language;
>whereupon you cite the relevant Semitic numerals. I don't get it.
We don't get you. The numerals are IE. The forms are unrelatable
to other language groups. Therefore they should be considered
native. Contrary to this, *septm is analysable in entirety as a Semitic
word. The root *sab`-, the masculine *-at-, and the mimative *-m
are all Semitic morphemes but non-existent in IE.
>As a clue: subtract the -n/-m and get *new- ("9" is sometimes derived
>from PIE *new- "new", and *dek-, close enough to Ruhlen's "hand,
>foot" word, also represented in IE.
It is only assumptive that *dekm derives from *dek-. That root also
doesn't exist in Semitic, so it would be impossible for it to be mimated
unless the intermediary language was an IE-Semitic creole. Perhaps
this is your theory. Creoles develop from pidgins, which are trading
languages... Indeed the neolithic was full of trade. In order to
support this idea, further data must bear this out.
However, *neun can be explained in IE terms without the need for
Semitic or some hypothesized creole. It appears to derive from *neu-
plus the inanimate *-n (an alternative of the heteroclitic ending *-r).
So your entire idea is based on a single etymon.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca