Re: [tied] -m (-n)?

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:32:05 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:

> >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.

Brockelmann Arab.Gr. 107 gives them both with -un (masc. tis`un, fem.
tis`atun, `as^run, `as^aratun).

Still, at least 'ten' cannot have a Semitic sonant m, for the full stem is
in fact *dek^-emt-, and it is only in pausa that the final /t/ is
suppressed. It reemerges in the ordinal (Gk. dekat-o-s), in the decadic
numerals (Gk. tria:kont-a), and in *k^mt-o-m 'a hundred'.

Jens