From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 27506
Date: 2003-11-22
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:I completely overlooked the "non-", probably because my brain couldn't deal
>> 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 derivedWell, *dek^m. is from *dek^m.t, so it doesn't really end in *-m.
>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?