On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Glen Gordon wrote:
> [...] We don't assume a priori that IE once had three syllables
> simply because Semitic happened to have three syllables! Sometimes loans
> don't work like that. It's faulty logic. We see _within_ IE that there are
> _two_ syllables. Therefore we start with this hypothesis _first_ for Pre-IE.
>
> Thus far, there is nothing _within_ IE to suggest that it derives from a
> three-syllable form. Such a possibility has no relevance to its actual
> likelihood
> anymore than potentially being struck by lightning doesn't stop me from
> going outdoors. Nor is it problematic to propose *sáb`atum over *sab`átum
> given the ambiguity of the Semitic data. We just don't ever need that extra
> syllable in IE, regardless of whether Semitic had three syllables. And
> "extra"
> is wasteful hypothesis.
The alternative is to derive the Semitic loanword from a kind of Semitic
that differs from all that is known. A priori the preferred solution would
be to accept the givens and assume that the Semitic form was somehow
changed after it had entered a prestage of PIE.
Analogy after *ok^tó:(w) is of course possible, but so are many other
things. It is not so simple and selfevident in my eyes as you appear to
take for granted, for *ok^tó:(w) suffers from the very same illness as
*septm.' by having a preaccented full grade. By the logic applied that
ought to make the form of 'eight' unoriginal. Then what could be the model
of the unexpected final accent of both seven and eight? The monosyllable
'six'??
I would really like to know why the one Semitic language that is said to
retain an old free accent, viz. Ethiopic, is quoted by two sources with a
form of 'seven' accenting it in the very same place as IE. It is plain
that the IE accent of 'seven' does not directly reflect that of any of the
other Semitic accent types. Since the accentuation of Ethiopic is not
noted in the writing I find it all the more remarkable that forms are just
quoted from "tradition" which match the IE loanword exactly. Is there
something about that tradition we should know?
I see many other possibilities, some more fanciful than others: Was the
accent movement in sáb5um : sab5átum polarized in PIE after the word was
adopted? Or did the prestage of Semitic /-um/ simply sound more like IE
*accented* sonant m so that that was its natural rendition? Note that
accented syllabic sonants were quite acceptable in PIE phonology. There
are other possible avenues, including those proposed by others on this
list.
>
> We both agree that *septm' is innovation on earlier *séptm.
You apparently do, but your choice seems arbitrary to me.
Jens