I am getting mighty provoked by some reactions. I try to stay focused:
We would like to understand the odd accent on the syllabic /m/ of IE
*septm which is known to be a loanword from some Semitic-like language.
That set me looking for information about the Semitic accent. I may have
had particularly bad luck, but the sources I have had at my disposal are
actually not averse to the idea of crediting the accent to the donor
language.
In Brockelmann's Semitische Sprachwissenschaft (a Sammlung Goeschen digest
of 1906 later blown up to the big Grundriss, vol. I of 1908) I read p.
61 that Ethiopian has retained the free Semitic accent, if not always in
its original position. The numerals are given p. 116, the Eth. form of the
fem. of seven being /sab(atu:/ with accent on the long /u:/; the Arabic is
sab(atun.
I see also in Christian Sarauw's posthumous study "Ueber Akzent und
Silbenbildung in den aelteren semitischen Sprachen" from 1939 that a rule
is posited for "Altsemitisch" (whatever that is) stipulating that the
accent goes on the vowel preceding the last consonant of the word.
Now, neither Brockelmann nor Sarauw was on a crusade to salvage the accent
of *septm'. Then, my innocent question is, why did they choose to make us
believe that the Proto-Semitic accent was in 'seven' exactly where it is
found in Indo-European? Were they wrong, and if so, what fooled them? If
something else is generally accepted for the Semitic accnt, what then is
the basis of that belief?
Now, having no serious knowledge of my own to boast about and having seen
no evidence being produced to make me think otherwise, I have simply
relied on the expert statements I could find, however dated they may be.
Perhaps it is just a diabolic mirage, but the pieces of information fit
each other quite well. Am I to discard their testomony completely? I will
if somebody can show me I must.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:
> Are they all insane or is it just me?
Maybe you should ask your good friend Ockham about that.
>
> It's beyond me how simple analogy involving a single step (accent shift)
> is somehow not "compelling enough". Not compelling enough in
> comparison to what? Jens' grandiose solution that rewrites Semitic?
> Piotr's ad hoc answer that lacks even a general theory on pre-IE to
> back it up?
>
> I suppose then Russian /dyevyat'/ "9" with /dy-/ instead of expected
> *n- is _not_ analogically altered by /dyesyat'/ "10" because it's not
> compelling either. Or is there a double standard going on with IE?
>
> Unless we're willing to reconstruct *dyeun alongside *neun, analogy
> _is_ compelling enough. Especially when this solution is the most
> credibly economical answer available.
Piotr is man enough to win his own battles, but this is just not fair: The
initial /n-/ of 'nine' is attested in most cognate languages. The
suggested prestage of *septm' with initial accent is not attested. I don't
care whether you can see the difference, I can. As for me, I am not
rewriting Semitic, quite the contrary, I'm trying to accept what
information I can get about it. And of course prestages of Semitic just
were not always Semitic yet.
Jens