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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:50:37 +0100 (MET), Harald Hammarstrom
> <haha2581@...> wrote:
>
> >Some more details: The numeral is frequently written as 7-an which

could

> >point to a form PAnatolian *siptan- which could however not to back
> >to PIE *septm. (because PIE *-m. securely gives Hitt. -un

so /s^ipta-/

> >could not be direct descendant either).
>
> Perhaps *septm. became *septn. (as in Gothic sibun, or Lith.

septynì). The

> regular outcome of *septn.' is *s^iptán.
>
>

I think I said it before: PIE accusative looks positively Portuguese:
sg. -m, pl. -ns. How can we be sure that what is reconstructed as
PIE -m isn't -n? The -m in Latin acc. -Vm disappears in contraction,
as if was only a mark of the nasalisation of the previous vowel, and
Sanskrit acc. -m is supposedly weak too.

Torsten