> >>It is also known that the numbers 1 to 6 are related in most Uralic
> >>languages, but numbers above 7 are not, so base 10 counting seems to
> >>have evolved later.
>
> Peter:
> > Well, the numeral 7 seems to be borrowed from various IE branches
> > (Baltic, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian), we will agree.
Glen:
> I think that there is a danger in this assumption that the lack of
> reconstructable words above "six" show that Uralic speakers used a
> six-based number system. I think that there is a reason for why we
> don't find things above "six". The reason is Neolithic world-view.
Yes, I must agree!
Glen:
> We also don't know what IE had before it adopted *septm from a Semitic
> tongue. I don't think it's because IE had a non-decimal system either.
> It's because "six" and "seven" had numerological significance even in
> prehistory. Thus, the ubiquitous adoption of "seven", particularly from a
> Middle-Eastern tongue in many unrelated European and West Asian languages,
> suggests to me that "seven" was something divine, a symbol perhaps of the
> goddess. We in fact later see the use of the numeral as a symbol in
> connection with the Bible (where "seven" represents completion, divinity,
> associated with God, etc as with the "seven days of creation" in
> opposition to the "six(-six-six)" of Satan) and also we hear of the Seven
> Sisters of the Pleiades and seven days of the week. The number of days
> in the year is 365 which when divided by 52 (a multiple of the prime 13),
> gives another prime, 7.
Yes, I can imagine that. So, as far as I can understand your point of view,
all the languages that borrowed the numeral from the Semitic source, and
that can have had their own expressions for it before that adoption, shared
the concept of the numeral seven, being divine, thus, this happened due to a
taboo, right? Could this imply certain cultural, economic, trading
superiority of the Semitic people?
Glen:
> I'm thinking that while I doubt that Uralic and IE were geographically
> very close to each other before 4000 BCE, it's not impossible for Near
> and Middle Eastern influences to spread their way into Uralic territory,
> causing the replacement of any former word for "seven", in favour of
> something much more religiously significant.
Well, as far as the "pathway" of the borrowing, I should list the most
tentative examples (given by various authors), possibly supporting Semitic >
IE languages > Uralic languages:
1. As for FP:
a. Blazek reconstructs *s'eN'c'emä "7" and considers it a borrowing from
a Baltic dialectal form (similar to OLith se~kmas "7th")
b. Napolskih prefers an early Slavic source (certainly preceding ES *sem,
perhaps, a hypothetical **sed'emI)
c. On the other hand, Honti reconstructs *s'ejc'c'em and compares it to
Samoyedic *sejt3w@^ "7"
2.As for Ugr (Hu & Kh):
a. According to Korenchy, *Tapt(E) / Ma *sä:t "7" (I am using T instead
of the theta sign) may have come from an Indo-Iranian source (one that
preserved the original *s-, contrary to the characteristic Iranian *s- > *h-
change) (if FU *s- gives regularly Ug *T-, while Ma *s- reflects FU *s'-)
b. Joki thinks that Ma *sä:t can be a borrowing from a different
Indo-Iranian source (cf. Dardic: Shina sat, sät, Prasun sEtE etc. and
Mittani Aryan (Kikkuli) s^atta)
c. Napolskikh supposes the Tocharian origin of Ugr "7" (cf. Toch A
s.äptänt- "7th")
d. Winter reconstructs common Toch *s^?p?t? (? = schwa) continuing in
Toch A and transforming in Toch B *s^w?t > *s.wat/*s.wät (further leading to
historically recorderd forms s.ukt, s.u:kt, s.uk, assuming the influence of
*aktu > okt "8"; according to Napolskikh the change of *-pt- > Toch B -kt-
can be regular)
e. According to Blazek, pre-Mansi *sä:t might have come from a form
similar to *s.wät, although he is not sure about the chronology.
3. Sm :
a. Blazek reconstructs *sejt3w?^ "7", he also mentions Sayan Sm *sejpt?^
(which he considers more archaic) and assumes their Toch origin
b. Janhunen and Napolskikh prefer to reconstruct Sm *sejkw?^ < from a
source of the Toch B type, i.e. s.uk(t) or sim.
To sum it up, I still think that the numeral may have got to Uralic
languages via some IE languages, hence (very roughly):
Semitic *sab`atum > IE *septm > various IE languages (Slavic? Baltic?
Indo-Iranian? Tocharian?) > various Uralic languages (Fenno-Permic
*s'eN'c'emä, Ugric *TäptE, Samoyaed *sejt3w?^ < *sejpt?^)
As for its phonetics, could you imagine a direct Ugric TäptE < Semitic
*sab`atum? Could this be possible geographically???
The fact, that Semitic "7" went to such a great number of different
languages, is amazing. Semitic nations must have been very influencial.
Petusek