Re: All of creation in Six and Seven

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Marco Moretti"
<marcomoretti69@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jdcroft@...> wrote:
> > Glen's speculations upon "six" and "seven" in a Semitic religious
> > context goes even deeper - to a Sumerian one.
> >
> > For instance we find in Sumerian the feminine Tiamat balanced

with

> > the masculine Abzu as the primary divinities. Tiamat is in fact
> > an "Akkadianisation" of a Sumerian name *Ti = Life, *Ama =

Mother.
<Snip>

> > The word for Deeps, in Canaanite-
> > Hebrew was *Tehowm, which is derived from the earlier Sumerian
> > *Tiama.
>
> No. Tiamat is a Semitic word not a Sumerian one. We have a WELL
> ATTESTED Hebrew teho:m "gap", "Deeps"; *tehowm is only

orthographic,

> the waw has no reality at all, and the item is not a product of
> speculation.

Perhaps *tehowm is a typo for <teho:wm>? It's a bit pedantic to say
a waw 'has no reality' simply because it's a pure vowel symbol in
this context.

> Tiamat is the Akkadian form, in which the ancient
> aspiration was lost, and with a feminine suffix. It is not

definitely

> a Sumerian item. Semitic is sufficient to explain it. Your Sumerian
> etymon is ill-formed, and doesn't account at all for the Hebrew
> aspiration, that is a phoneme, not a simple hiatus separator.

What's the difference here?

> > Sumerian Sa-ba-ududa, in Akkadian became Sabbatu, the "Seventh"
> day,
> > or day of rest (the Biblical Sabbath). Thus the Semitic word for
> > seven actually has a Sumerian source. This sacred source of the
> day
> > of rest, entered the Bible as "the seventh day of creation", and
> > thus is the source of the number seven throughout the Middle

East,

> a
> > wander-word which finishes up in Proto-Indo-European as the

source

> > for the number seven.
> >
> > Comments anyone?
> >
>
> Shabbath is by somebody considered of uncertain etymology. As for

me,

> it is simply "seventh (day)". I found no mention at all of Sumerain
> Sa-ba-ududa. Perhaps it is for my ignorance, but I suspect that it

is

> a construction of yours, an arbitrary one in order to give to

Semitic

> for seven a Sumerian origin.
> I studied some Hebrew five year ago, and when I was almost able to
> speak it I was busy with other matters and I abandoned it. If I
> remember well, it is Shabbath with an initial /sh/, and also Hebrew
> for "seven" has initial /sh/. It cannot be from Sumerian /s/. We

have

> no Hebrew word with /sh/ from Sumerian /s/.

Aren't we talking about a fairly early loan if there is a connection
with the word for 'seven', rather than a loan through Akkadian? The
idea of pre-Hebrew /T/ and /s/ merging and then becoming /sh/ has
always appealed to me. Isn't the lack of an ayin a more telling
argument against a connection with the word for 'seven'?

Richard.