Mate:
>But for 7 it is sure it's from Semitic because of the *-at-um, and we have
>no such thing in 6. *s^ > *sw is not unconvincing but the derivation is not
>very straightforward.
I guess it depends on whether your strategy is to refuse to examine
anything outside of Proto-IE or not. However, that kind of thinking
denies us answers because many answers on Proto-IE do lie outside
of Proto-IE. As I said, there is a general borrowing pattern with
regards to both "6" and "7" which IE is part of. I gave examples that
show this, making the foreign nature of *sweks especially clear over
and above other facts that betray this truth: undeclinable, an
indivisible root, yet phonetically uncharacteristic of a native indivisible
root.
>>You're absolutely right. But the *k in *sweks isn't from *s^ at all.
>
>Enlighten me please.... :-)
The *-ks- in *sweks cannot be a reflex of Semitic *s^. While Hebrew
has /shesh, shishsha/, note that Classical Arabic has /sitt, sitta/ with
"tt". This doesn't suggest *s^ at all.
Unfortunately, I've never come across the word for "six" in
Proto-Semitic in any book. Even on zompist.com, with all its lists of
numerals from 1 to 10 in various languages, protolanguages and
conlangs, there is no mention of the reconstructed numeral for "six"
in Semitic even though it surely must have existed based on the
comparative data. Miguel had quoted something to the effect of
*s^idTu-. Whatever one chooses for the reconstruction, it must
be a stop (probably dental) + fricative in that position which IE *-ks
is attempting to reflect. Nothing in Semitic shows anything that
can be construed as "palatal" in this position so why on earth
would IE reflect it with *-k^s? Why not *-ks? That's because it
_is_ *ks, at least at the time of borrowing, during the hayday
of the neolithic, the sixth millenium BCE.
Now at this, you might claim "See? Palatals may not have
occured in the prestage of IE but maybe they did in Proto-IE
itself". I would have to accept that position but this example
shows that I'm correct where the earliest stages of pre-IE
are concerned. Therefore we cannot speak of palatal velars
when comparing IE to Uralic for the purposes of Nostratic
comparison as had been irrationally done in a previous post
because palatalization, if there was indeed such a thing, can
now be confidently established as an IE innovation.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca