> 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?
Yes. I do think that this is part of a cultural and economic exchange
from the Near and Middle East outwards, but 'superiority'? And of the
Semitic people specifically? No. I think that it's clear that Anatolia
in general, whether it be from Semites, Hattians, Hurrians or what
have you, were the major influence on northern peoples. However, maybe
I'm mad but I get the overall impression that the Eastern Mediterranean
was the source of the neolithic economy that would seed the later
'civilisations'.
Waterways would be an excellent way to haul goods rather than by land
and, while I'm no sea captain, I'd imagine you can get from Palestine to
the north coast of the Black Sea without too much trouble. It would just
take time, but not as much time as dragging the goods across desert,
forest and tundra :)
Perhaps the reason for the adoption of the _Semitic_ word for 'seven'
per se is a) because the Semites would have been well connected to the
Eastern Mediterranean at the time and b) because they might be the source
of the numerological cult that perhaps stems from something agricultural.
(I'm thinking a lot lately about how old the concept of the calendar is
and whether it has bearing on this symbol of seven.)
> 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")
Yes, well I can accept that the Uralic word for 'seven' was something
quite different from this and that however one might reconstruct this
numeral, it is a borrowing in post-IE times from many IE languages
depending on the branch you're talking about. I can't comment much
about which IE languages Uralic languages have borrowed from though. It's
nothing something I've looked into as deeply as you have.
> As for its phonetics, could you imagine a direct Ugric TäptE < Semitic
> *sab`atum? Could this be possible geographically???
No. Semitic was supposed to have been spoken in Palestine/Syria. IE
and perhaps Tyrrhenian languages would be the only possible intermediaries
between Ugric and Semitic, so I'd gather that it's most probable that
Ugric loaned the numeral from an IE language. However, don't forget that
Etruscan also borrowed the numeral (note /sempH/). I'd imagine that the
preceding Proto-Tyrrhenian word would have been *sempa or *sepa at around
3000-2500 BCE and borrowed directly from a Semitic language.
= gLeN