Why just Latin, if the relevant aspects of PIE is reconstructable?
The similarity of the "6" and "7" terms in Semitic and IE has long
been observed and commented on. I suppose most IEsts would agree that
*septm is very likely a borrowing from Proto-Semitic (it fits very
elegantly into a Semitic derivational paradigm). Whether the same can
be claimed for "6" depends partly on how you reconstuct the PIE
numeral. Certainly *sek^s (which is OK for Latin or Germanic) would
fit better than *kswek^s (as required for Indo-Iranian). Some
linguists have suggested that the very variability of the term points
to it's having been borrowed more than once via different routes, but
the simplification of a monstrous triconsonantal cluster (*ksw- > *ks-
/*sw-/*s-/*w-) in a frequently used numeral is also plausible (the
word could be an obscured PIE compound). To sum up, the etymology
of "6" is moot, but the Semitic hypothesis is a serious possibility.
As for the cited noun endings, I completely fail to see
the "sameness" or indeed anything that could be accepted as formal
resemblance. Which Latin (or PIE)declensions look like that??
Piotr
--- In cybalist@..., longgren@... wrote:
> Old Akkadian had some of the same endings as Latin.
> Let's look at the world for "king".
>
> sg. nom. sharr-um
> gen. sharr-im
> acc. sharr-am
> pl. nom. sharr-u, sharr-anu
> gen./acc sharr-i, sharr-ani
>
> And compare 6 and 7 with Latin
>
> 6
> m. f.
> sheshum shedishtum
>
> 7
> m. f.
> sebum sebettum