Re: -m (-n)?

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

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:32:05 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Seems everyone agrees that PIE *septm "7" must have passed through

a

> >Semitic languague
>
> I'm quite sure no-one else would put it quite that way.
>
> >and that the final -m comes from a mimated/nunated
> >form of the original word (which therefore still may be 'si

pitu').

> >But what then of the -n of *newn and -m of *dek^m? Are they from

the

> >same source as the -m in *septm (in which case they would be non-
> >Semitic numerals nunated/mimated in a Semitic (Para-Semitic?)
> >language)?
>
> Semitic 9 = *tis`atu, *tis`u
> Semitic 10 = *`as'aratu, *`as'ru
>
> In other words, no.
>

I repeat: in which case they would be non-Semitic numerals
nunated/mimated in a Semitic (Para-Semitic?) language;
whereupon you cite the relevant Semitic numerals. I don't get it.

As a clue: subtract the -n/-m and get *new- ("9" is sometimes derived
from PIE *new- "new", and *dek-, close enough to Ruhlen's "hand,
foot" word, also represented in IE. So these two roots may be IE (or
para-IE). Why the -n and -m, then, which *septm seems to have too?

Torsten