Me:
> Since there is absolutely (and I mean _absolutely_) no evidence
> for *-ks once being **ts(W), why theorize it?
Miguel:
> Because if we don't assume a development ds^ > ts > ks, the Semitic
> borrowing hypothesis must be abandoned.
That reasoning makes no sense. I just finished talking about
hypercorrection in my "American pronunciation" post and the
mispronunciation of foreign words too.
As I said in that post, we most often pronounce "Beijing" with a
/3/ even though Mandarin speakers use /d3/. Following your reasoning
then: Since Mandarin speakers always pronounce it as /d3/ and we
have /d3/ in our sound system, the idea that "Beijing" is a borrowed
name from Mandarin "must be abandoned".
> When a word is borrowed, it's usually adapted to the phonotactics
> of the recipient language (your "misheard").
This was not entirely how I was using "misheard". As with the
Beijing example, sometimes the unexpected happens. There are too
many surrounding circumstances that guarantee that the word "six"
was borrowed from *sidc^u, even if the phonetics aren't perfect.
The question is when and whether it was borrowed at the same time
as *septm, as you bring up.
> PIE, to my knowledge, didn't have /ts/,
Why wouldn't they? They could certainly have it in medial position,
even in Mid IE, afaic. And even speaking of IE itself, how would
you pronounce *sedtos or *edti?
> so it's conceivable that the word was changed so that it included
> the cluster /ks/ instead.
Since your claim is based on nothing, it's not conceivable. Instead,
it's still unnecessary assumption.
>> I could come half-way with you and say that the original form
>> could have been *sWeksWa,
>
> Yes. Or *sWeksWu.
No, since in my theory, which bears less assumptions than yours,
only unstressed *a (pronounced as [&]) disappears. Unstressed
high vowels like *e [I] evidently do not disappear by Late IE
and are even strengthened to *i before stress in compounds.
> It did allow them, but labialization was lost in consonant clusters.
> Cf. Armenian nom.pl. -k` < *-esW vs. acc.pl. -s < *-ns < *-m-s.
Until qualified IEists show me otherwise, I will take the
consensus view that Armenian, being traceable directly to IE,
derives -k` from *-es, not **-esW (which is definitely not
properly reconstructed IE). Save your reworkings of IE
for someone else. This cookie ain't buyin' it.
> I don't understand what your problem is. We have Semitic /dc^/
> or /ds^/, we have PIE /k^s/. What do *you* suggest the
> development was?
Simple: Semitic *dc^ -> IE *ks. I'm not saying that this is to
be considered a regular correspondance since *dc^ isn't all
that common, I'm sure. You are obsessed with explaining
everything with sound change rules but we just don't need
that extra assumption here.
> You weren't paying attention. Here's another quote:
>
> [*] note that "7" is irregular in East Semitic: we have <sebe>
> for expected *<s^ebe>.
Ah, thanks. Mea culpa.
> 1) *septm. was borrowed from Proto-Semitic *sab`-atu-m
> *sweks was borrowed later proto-North Semitic *s^idc^-u
>
> 2) *sweks was borrowed from proto-North Semitic *s^idc^-u
> *septm. was borrowed later from East Semitic *seb(`)-etu-m
>
> I much prefer (2).
But "_Why_ do you prefer #2?" is the question since #1 is
a smoother set of events that better fits the facts about IE.
It would most logically be easier for IE to have adopted
Semitic loanwords from the west than from the east and even
more likely from north than south. Simple geographical logic.
So anything from the "northwest" edge of the Semitic area is
optimal when formulating a sensible view. That negates #2.
In option #1 and using my Mid IE theory, both *septm and
*sweks must be borrowed before the Mid IE syncope that heralds
the beginning of the Late IE period, c.5000 BCE, for otherwise
we cannot explain the absence of unstressed vowels that exist
in Semitic. On the other hand, the loans are best explained as
happening during the neolithic when trade was fertile. Sometime
during or after 6000 BCE is optimal. This leaves an 1000-year
window between 6000 and 5000 BCE.
At that, we may conclude that "seven" was borrowed from
common Proto-Semitic *sab`atum into early Mid IE as *septam
between 6000-5500 BCE while "six" was borrowed into mid to
late MIE as *sWeksa or *sWeksWa from a newly distinct "North
Semitic" dialect between 5500-5000 BCE bearing *s^idc^u. We
must subsequently presume some things in the scenario:
1. That common Semitic dissolved around 6000-5500 BCE.
2. That North Semitic developped *s > *s^ before 5000 BCE.
3. That Semitic *a was front while MIE *a was central to
back.
4. That Semitic *u in suffixes like *-at-um and *-u were
pronounced more as /U/ than /u/, yielding /&/ in MIE,
while *a in those suffixes was nothing but a short /&/
All these points work well within already-established views and
may, in concert with Mid IE, provide further detail on Semitic
linguistic prehistory.
= gLeN