[tied] Re: "Will the 'real' linguist please stand up?"

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

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:49:24 -0000, "tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:39:30 -0000, "tgpedersen
> >> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >But is it certain that the loan came from Semitic or might it

be

> >from
> >> >some other AfroAsiatic language (with Semitic later k > t)?

Note in

> >> >
> >> >http://www.zompist.com/mide.htm#afro
> >> >
> >> >for "six" and "seven"
> >> >Omotic, North, Dizoid
> >> >Dizi yàkú tù:sú
> >> >Shako yaku tubsu
> >> >Nao yakko tessen
> >>
> >> Of all the Afro-Asiatic subgroups, Omotic is doubtless the least
> >> likely to have been in contact with PIE. Besides, Semitic
> >> *s^ids^atu(m), *sab`atu(m) look like more likely sources for PIE
> >> *sWek^sW and *septm than yaku and tubsu.
> >>
> >> =======================
> >> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> >> mcv@...
> >
> >Of course. But I thought perhaps the /k/ of (s-less) "six" words

of

> >Omotic might testify to an earlier state of affairs in AfroAsiatic?
>
> I don't see how s^ids^- and yaku can be related at all. Tubsu and
> sab3a- perhaps, but I know nothing about Omotic.
>

*(s)(w)ekW(s)- ?

It looks horrible, but no more horrible than the standard
reconstruction for PIE "six".

Torsten