Piotr:
>I was wondering if the original pattern wasn't something like **sab(a)t�m >
>*septm.', without a stress shift.
Jens:
>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.
I abhor rabid theorizing when a simpler, less involved answer is at hand. As
I already posted to Piotr, I think *okto:u is the source of a _later_
analogical
spread of accent to the second syllable in *septm. We can conceive of "7"
and "8" as forming pairs when counting and "9" and "10" do too. Miguel is
too caught up on numerals ending in *-m to see this natural counting
pairing,
and the quite apparent cause of accent shift.
We don't need to theorize "propvowels" and the like to cover our asses or
to explain away a marked nominative. You could just as well do this
phonology
game with IE's nominative in *-s but it would be misguided and very false.
Secondly, to Piotr's idea above, one naturally must ask why we don't see
**septom for this *sab(a)tum. It doesn't make sense to replace *-um with
*-m when an accented *-om is more natural in IE to begin with.
So, I have to reject this notion because it seems highly unlikely.
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca