Re: [tied] All of creation in Six and Seven

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

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:20:39 +0000, elmeras2000 <jer@...> wrote:
> >I find the occurrence of nunation in the numerals quite

bewildering.

> >The -t- forms practical all end in -tun, but the short forms only
> >have -un here and there.
>
> You've lost me. -tun in Ge'ez?

No, I mean across the Semitic languages; Ge'ez has -tu(:) where
Arabic has -tun. In the t-less form of the numerals 3-10, I see
nunation/mimation noted in all forms in Arabic, while Ge'ez has -u
(-u:) in 6-10, but not in 3-5, and Akkadian has -u in all except 7.

> >[...] However, if the story of *-C-m
> > Semitic *-C-um is to be correct, it must be older than Proto-
> >Semitic.
>
> Well, as I already said, that story must be wrong. The definite

nominative

> ends in *-u, and there is no mimation or nunation after it.

You don't seem to have understood the point. My suggestion was that
the nasal-less form *-u is analogical, formed by simple subtraction
of the nasal of the extended form *-um which I tentatively derive
from postconsonantal *-m. Do you also deny the secondary character
of the -u- of Gothic fotus, the -i- of Lithuanian naktìs, and the -a-
of Modern Greek patéras? I do not *know* that the same explanation
goes for Semitic, but I would like it to be considered for what it
is worth.

Jens