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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

>
> > 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

*************
However neat your story (or two stories) on pure
linguistic grounds, it seems to me to defy common sense that I. E.
would borrow the word for "seven" from Semitic, wait a thousand
years or so and then borrow the word for "six".
Did the words replaced lost I.-E. words or were new
concepts? It's hard to imagine whatever sociological situation led
to the borrowing of seven was repeated long after for six. I doubt
that some genius in the sixth millenium said "We need something to
go between five and seven -- let's check what the Semites have."
Find a way to borrow them as a pair (maybe by being more
flexible about the development of Semitic) and I'll believe you,
however it affects my prejudices about the location of the I.-E. at
that date.
Dan