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

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

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:42:07 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >--- 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.
>
> Latin, for instance, distinguishes -m. (-em, as in the accusative)

from -n.

> (-en, as in the -mn.-neuters, no:men, etc.).

To which one might argue that whoever designed Latin orthography
didn't want a stem to alternate as much as *-em, *-in-, and therefore
made an allowance for "etymological spelling" in such cases.

> The acc.pl. has to be reconstructed as *-m.s on the basis of

Hittite acc.pl

> -us (not *-as, what *-n.s would have given).
>

I'm out of my depth here.

Torsten