Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

Miguel:

> The *k^ in PIE *swek^s suggests that the word was borrowed from North
> Semitic early [...], and that it was borrowed into a (pre-)PIE or
> through a language that transformed the cluster /ts(W)/ into /ks(W)/.

So much for your claim of not having preconceived notions. The latter idea
of **ts(W) transforming into **ks(W) is an example of your
self-contradiction. Ignoring the already contrived and anti-linguistic
ubiquity of your labialized phonemes, this is still unneeded and purely
assumptive.
It only suffices that IE speakers heard the dental stop as *k before the
affricate. It happens. There's nothing to stress over.

> I mentioned East Semitic and North-West Semitic together (they both share
> the development *s > *s^).
> [...]
> The numeral "7", on the other hand, suggests a later borrowing, more
> specifically from East Semitic (because of *s-, not *sw-),

?? Don't the two quotes above contradict each other? I gather you're
looking for a Semitic dialect with *s- for *septm, yet if you choose East
Semitic and you say that *s > *s^, then we have *s^-, yielding IE *sw-. I
don't get it. Explain. Why not just opt for Proto-Semitic *sab`atum and be
done with it?


= gLeN