From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30107
Date: 2004-01-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))
> Actually, I'd say that it is if both numerals are borrowed over and over
> again as a pair. Look at Kartvelian, Basque and Etruscan. It seems clear
> that these numerals had some significance to neolithic cultures, a very
> strong significance, no doubt religious and numerological. It's hard to
> consider one without the other.
But for 7 it is sure it's from Semitic because of the *-at-um, and we have
no such thing in 6. *s^ > *sw is not unconvincing but the derivation is not
very straightforward.
> You're absolutely right. But the *k in *sweks isn't from *s^ at all.
Enlighten me please.... :-)
Mate