From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 30463
Date: 2004-02-02
>Miguel:If /s^/ was borrowed as /sW/, *s^ids^ must have been borrowed initially as
>> The *k^ in PIE *swek^s suggests that the word was borrowed from North
>> Semitic early [...], and that it was borrowed into a (pre-)PIE or
>> through a language that transformed the cluster /ts(W)/ into /ks(W)/.
>
>So much for your claim of not having preconceived notions. The latter idea
>of **ts(W) transforming into **ks(W) is an example of your
>self-contradiction. Ignoring the already contrived and anti-linguistic
>ubiquity of your labialized phonemes, this is still unneeded and purely
>assumptive.
>It only suffices that IE speakers heard the dental stop as *k before theAnd how is that in contradiction to what I said?
>affricate. It happens. There's nothing to stress over.
>> I mentioned East Semitic and North-West Semitic together (they both shareAs I said, not in East Semitic (Akk. sebettum).
>> the development *s > *s^).
>> [...]
>> The numeral "7", on the other hand, suggests a later borrowing, more
>> specifically from East Semitic (because of *s-, not *sw-),
>
>?? Don't the two quotes above contradict each other? I gather you're
>looking for a Semitic dialect with *s- for *septm, yet if you choose East
>Semitic and you say that *s > *s^, then we have *s^-