On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> I was wondering if the original pattern wasn't something like **sab(a)túm >
> *septm.', without a stress shift.
I would tend to agree. I have been lectured by some who insist that a
marked nominative is typologically unacceptable. I can rid them of the
apparent marking in the Semitic nominative by assuming that the mimated
form in -um was originally unmarked, and that the -u- is a propvowel that
was coloured by the -m. The non-mimated form in -u is then analogical. The
IE form in syllabic /m/ may now even be form the *prestage* of Semitic -um
with a less chromatic syllabic peak before the -m. I know nothing about it
myself, but Sarauw says Semitic accented the vowel preceding the last
consonant of the word. If that is applied to 'seven', we get something
like *sept&'m with accented propvowel, i.e. something very close to the
form with accented m sonans. The retention of the -e- indicates very
strongly that IE ablaut was already a thing of the past when the word eas
adopted.
Jens