I said:
>Well, I don't know about *sab`�tu. I'm counting on *s�b`atu.
Miguel responded:
>It doesn't matter for IE. *s�ptm. comes from *s�bVtVm regardless of the
>original Semitic accent. If the Semitic acentuation was *sab`�tum (as the
>Semitic data suggest), this means that the word was borrowed before/during
>the working of the initial accent rule.
But I don't believe there _was_ this initial accent rule. There is no basis
for
this. We have conflicting theories as you know. My theory is much stricter
than
yours on what is probable as the Mid IE equivalents of Reconstructed IE
forms.
There are no complex calculations to hurdle through to figure out Mid IE
nor more than it is particularly confusing to work out a probable Old
English
form for a Modern English item. And both seem to be seperated by the same
amount of time.)
Due to MIE penultimate accent, the basis of which I've already stated (the
widespread but arcane accent alternations seen in verbs, *?�sti/*?s�nti, AND
nouns, *peku/*pek�us), the _only_ possible number of syllables *septm
could have had in Mid IE is two since the accent was on the first syllable,
ignoring Piotr's citing of second syllable accent in some branches which
appears to just be innovation based on neighbouring *okt�:u. The phonetics
of the word suggest strongly that the original accent was on the first
syllable,
not second. That we agree on.
Since I don't agree that there was an "initial accent" in IE when this loan
took place, my conclusion is different -- Semitic accent must have fallen on
the first syllable as well, despite a few examples of accent change which
for all we know could be analogy playing tricks again. Our theory becomes
far too elaborate if we don't accept accent on the first syllable for both
languages, something which is credible for Semitic and IE given what we
know of their accent patterns anyway.
If accent had been on the second syllable in Semitic, we'd expect IE to
have *-om or *-um for *-um, rather than a completely unmotivated
zero-grade *-m. If the accent was on the second syllable but IE had
borrowed it before the accent pattern supposedly shifted in IE, we'd still
expect some trace of the laryngeal in this supposedly accented syllable
*-`a-, if not the vowel. One might say that the sequence *b` was
reinterpreted as an aspirated *p, but this is difficult to swallow if IE
always had laryngeals. How could an ayin not be heard as a laryngeal
here?? You'd think IE's could hear the difference between an
aspirated *p (if it was aspirated) and a sequence *px, the latter which
we'd expect. As you can see, a second syllable accented is too
problematic and presents more questions than answers. Why build
a theory on what-ifs?
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca