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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:

> Torsten:
> >You have just proved that the "seven" is loan from Semitic to IE
> >which I never doubted. You haven't disproved the it is a loan from
> >some other language into Semitic, which is what I proposed
>
> Finally! Now why couldn't you just spit that out earlier? Alright.
>
> We know that it couldn't be from Semitic itself. So there needs to
> be an intermediary, which is why I suggested "Semitish". You suggest
> that it is not Semitish even though the only words we see loaned
> into IE appear to be very much Semitic in origin. The onus would
> be on you to prove that the language is not Semitish, but something
> else. This requires showing elements of that language that cannot
> be IE or Semitic... but then that could just be the lingering

vestiges

> of Semitish for all we know :)
>

You got me wrong again. I wasn't talking about your intermediary
language Semitish (your version of the loan path for "seven"):
Semitic > Semitish > IE). I was asking: from where did the "seven"
word get into Semitic in the first place (my version X > Semitic >
IE, question: what is this language, X ?)

Torsten