[tied] Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)

From: tgpedersen
Message: 34180
Date: 2004-09-16

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andrew_and_inge" <100761.200@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Exu Yangi" <exuyangi@...> wrote:
> > >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > >wrote:
> > >Within the lunar month the moon has four phases, each about a
> > >week 7 days long. That's sacred for ya.
> > >
> > >So perhaps a tendency to become a taboo word. That might
explain
> > >the independent Uralic borrowings from different branches of IE.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps, although the breaking up into FOUR groups of seven
seems
> fairly
> > arbitrary. Why not 3 groups (new, 1/3, and 2/3), or even just
two
> (new/full)
> > ? The seven day week seem a new thing, although there are
> evidences of four
> > day weeks from northern and central Africa. Perhaps not four
> groups of
> > seven, but seven groups of four?
> >
> > As for being a taboo word, and hence borrowed from elsewhere ---
> usually
> > taboo words find their replacements from within the native
stock.
> Withness
> > Japanese shi (death;four) being replaced from another counting
> heirarchy.
>
> As the ancient semitic culture also spread the idea of a calendar
> with 4 weeks per month this seems no problem. Business people and
> especially ones who travel, need calendars.
>
> Keep in mind that by calling the importance of seven totemistic
this
> discussion downplays the fact that ancient people did not
> distinguish like we do between knowledge one has to have faith in,
> and knowledge simply. The calendar and stories about which things
> are sacred, like the moon, were both ways of describing what only
> later got to be called nature. In other words, this understanding
of
> weeks also spread because it was useful, not just because the moon
> was considered sacred.
>
> ...or so it seems given the evidence we now have.
>

I know. It was their version of quantum mechanics.
But all civilisations will have to deal with the problem of the
starting point of the chain of causation. There must necesarily be
a 'primus movens' or 'prima causa', otherwise it's turtles all the
way down. Something that is directly connected to 'the other side'.

Torsten