>Because the patterns that count here are linguistical, not numeric (it
>so happens the IE loans adhere to the pattern {x: | 5 - x | = 1})
Don't understand. Say wha?
>>Think for a moment here. What would be a really valid reason for the
>> >>loss of *s- within IE when speaking of *sweks? Some use the process
>> >>of dissimilation but I don't know of many words that work like this
>> >>in IE
>
>As explained: *(y)us < *swesw "you (pl.)".
You're talking about a mythical version of preIE that is, in itself,
hopelessly deranged. The full form is with *y- in IE so don't put
parantheses around something that truely exists. It's plain to see that *us-
is a phonetic simplification of the full *yu(:)s- in mimickry of the pattern
found in the other pronouns, not vice versa (note: *tu vs *te/*twe where the
latter is the simpler enclitic version for use in the oblique). Your *sw-
isn't supposed to become *y- and so your logic is clearly in conflict with
itself. Don't hide, address the problem. It would be wiser for you to take
stock of this blunt paradox and adapt rather than twisting reconstructed IE
forms in an implausible way to suit your "needs".
Trust me, saying "IndoTyrrhenian *s becomes IE *s" sounds way more plausible
than saying, "*sw > (y) except on Tuesdays after 9:00 PM or before
laryngeals except when it doesn't suit my needs or takes away my desire to
cook up zany sound changes whose main ingredient is brown sugar, if you know
what I wean... erh I mean 'mean' because 'm' and 'w' only interchange in
_Akkadian_ except on Tuesdays after 9:00 PM or...".
>Neighbouring, such as Lithuanian and Old Prussian?
Neighbouring. Next to. Beside. Adjacent to. In French: A cote de. There
would be an IE dialect area beside (next to/neighbouring/adjacent to/a cote
de) Kartvelian. IE languages that exhibit the loss of *s- in "six" would be
derived from such a dialect area. Thus, Kartvelian would be the source of
the unusual modification of the word in IE.
>>Why must it be Akkadian? Is a change of -m- to -w- attested in >>Akkadian
>>or Assyrian?
>
>Yes, indirectly (cuneiform orthography being what it is). Words with
>etymological *w started being written with MV(C)-signs.
Erh... I get skeptical when people say "cuneiform orthography being what it
is" because it seems like an intro to a mad journey into wild
(mis)interpretations. Etymological *w? Explain. Examples? What time period
are we talking?
G'night, I sleep now.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com