Re: [tied] All of creation in Six and Seven

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:42:07 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:50:37 +0100 (MET), Harald Hammarstrom
>> <haha2581@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Some more details: The numeral is frequently written as 7-an which
>could
>> >point to a form PAnatolian *siptan- which could however not to back
>> >to PIE *septm. (because PIE *-m. securely gives Hitt. -un
>so /s^ipta-/
>> >could not be direct descendant either).
>>
>> Perhaps *septm. became *septn. (as in Gothic sibun, or Lith.
>septynì). The
>> regular outcome of *septn.' is *s^iptán.
>>
>>
>
>I think I said it before: PIE accusative looks positively Portuguese:
>sg. -m, pl. -ns. How can we be sure that what is reconstructed as
>PIE -m isn't -n? The -m in Latin acc. -Vm disappears in contraction,
>as if was only a mark of the nasalisation of the previous vowel, and
>Sanskrit acc. -m is supposedly weak too.

Latin, for instance, distinguishes -m. (-em, as in the accusative) from -n.
(-en, as in the -mn.-neuters, no:men, etc.).

The acc.pl. has to be reconstructed as *-m.s on the basis of Hittite acc.pl
-us (not *-as, what *-n.s would have given).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...