Re: [tied] All of creation in Six and Seven

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

>
> Torsten:
> >Logical parsimony demands that all IE forms of "seven" are borrowed
> >from the same Semitic language, when the idea of a feminine gender
> >wasn't?
>
> Why are you not getting this, Torsten? I hate to be nasty but I have
> to be honest: I seriously wonder if you have a learning disability

or are

> dyslexic.

I don't think so. I was very good at spelling in school. I can
spell 'immerse', if you want me to.

>Let's try again and please pay attention to every sentence.
>
> Semitic has feminine and masculine gender, yes. The *t in IE *septm
> shows a Semitic gender marker. IE already had its own gender system
> of animate and inanimate, which is not the same as masculine-

feminine

> obviously.
>
> IE only borrowed the Semitic form *sab`atum, the masculine mimated
> form. This produced IE *septm. It didn't borrow any other form, so
> there is only *septm in IE. Whereas there is *sab`atum, *sab`um,
> *sab`u, and so on in Semitic because numerals were normally gender-

marked

> in that language and took on many suffixes. This is not the case in

IE.

> Only *septm exists as _the_ form for the numeral.
>
> So the question I naturally pose is, why on earth did IE

specifically

> borrow the masculine mimated form as the word for "seven"? Why
> not the feminine? Why is the word *sweks based on the feminine
> form and not the masculine? Why do the two side-by-side numerals
> have opposite genders when analysed in Semitic?
>
> Thus, perhaps it has something to do with the "heavenly marriage"
> already mentioned.
>
>

That was interesting, but what does it have to do with my question?

Torsten