'seven'.

[Rankin, Robert L.]

Here are the cognate sets for 'seven'.


GLOSS[ seven 1

PSI[ *ša•kú•pa



OTHREC[ *sak-ma W-175



PCH[ *šáhpua < possible *šákupVhV (see discussion below)

CR[ sáhpua ‘seven’ GG-55, DEC-82

HI[ šáhpua ‘seven’ J



MA[ kú•pa ‘seven’ C



PDA[ *šakówį

LA[ šákowį ~ šakówį ‘seven’ C

DA[ šákowį ~ šakówį ‘seven’ R-440



PWC[ *ša•k-

CH[ Otoe: są́ʔhmą ‘seven’ C

CH[ Iowa: sáhmą ~ šáhmą ‘seven’ RR

CH[ Otoe: sá•hmą ~ sáhmą ‘seven’ RR

WI[ šaagóowį ‘seven’ KM-2900



PSE[ *sa•ku•mį



OF[ †fə́kumi “fạ́kumĭ” ‘seven’ DS-323b

OF[ †fákumi “fA´kumî” ‘seven’ SW-1909:485



TU[ †sa•kó•m(į) ~ †sa•kú•m(į) “saagom (N), sagomēi, sāgōmią, sagomíñk”

‘seven’ H.

TU[ †sakúm “s’gúm” ‘seven’ Hw.

TU[ sakų́ ‘seven’ Sapir

TU[ sagóm ‘three, seven’ Frachtenberg



COM[ Like several other numbers, ‘seven’ is difficult to reconstruct with

certainty. The available forms may represent two stages of development. The

less transparent found in CR/HI, MA, CH (three subgroups) may be older. An

approximate reconstruction might be {*ša•ku•pa} or {*ša•ku•pą}. DA and

WI show an apparently remodeled late form clearly based on {*ša•k-}

‘hand’ and {-wį} ‘one’, based in turn on the hand signal for ‘seven’ in

the sign language. The second fist (closed) represents ‘six’ and the same

with the index finger extended ‘seven’, i.e., ‘fist + one’. The {-o-} is

interpretable as ‘locative’ but may just be a relic of an original,

unanalizable {-u-}, folk etymologized as ‘locative {o-}’. The

reanalysed form would presumably have diffused through parts of MVS. DH and

BI innovate, using an entirely non-cognate, quinary term.  The OVS forms look

primitive, not remodeled, for two reasons: a) OVS quite regularly shows

{*č < **š} in ‘hand’, while ‘seven’ has only {*s}, and b) the {*wį}

root, ‘one 2’, seems to be restricted to MVS (and possibly MA); OVS shows

only ‘one 1’. Also, shared remodeling in the neighboring DA and WI seems

quite ordinary; if the OVS forms are following the same pattern, then it

would presumably be a convergence, rather than a shared innovation, and we

find that more exceptional. Another possible argument has to do with the

{*wį} root itself: this root is one of those where the {*w} does not

nasalize to {m}. In CH and OVS, however, the word for ‘seven’ does exhibit

this nasalization. We think the DA alternants with first syllable stress are

due to contamination with ‘six’, presumably from serial counting.  This is

one of the terms in which TU |s|, instead of the expected |*č|, corresponds

to PSI|*š|.  The two long vowels plus the MA form suggest that the word was

morphemically complex to begin with.  We know that CR/HI |-ua| represents loss

of an intervocallic glide -- typically |h|, possibly |w|.  We also know that

CR/HI |hp| results from a cluster, here most likely |*kp|. That enables us

to back up from the attested forms to something like |*šakpuha|.  The last

steps come from the reasonably well-attested rightward vowel transposition,

which generally swaps a |u| for some vowel in the succeeding syllable.  The

exchanged vowel has evidently been lost.  Restoring it gives us |*šakVpuha|,

from which undoing rightward vowel transposition gives us |*šakupVha|.  The

nasality of the PSI final vowel remains unresolved.



==

GLOSS[ seven 2



PDH[ *hpé•-rǫpa   hpe•+'two'

PN[ ppé•ðąba ~ ppéąba (fast) ‘seven’ So. Ponca RR

OP[ ppéðǫba ‘seven’ C

KS[ ppé:yǫba ‘seven’ RR

OS[ hpé:ǫpa ‘seven’ RR

QU[ ppé:nǫba ‘seven’ RR



BI[ †ną́pa-hudi “náⁿpahudí” ‘two’ + ‘stem, bone’ DS-238b



COM[ Cf. ‘eight’.  In DH and BI the counting system has shifted independently

to a partial quinary pattern (similar to neighboring central Algonquian and

Muskogean systems). DH {*hpe•-} is unidentified, and apparently unattested

outside the counting words. Initial {hC} always indicates a lost initial

syllable in DH, so the stem might conceivably be {nąpé} ‘hand’ (i.e., the

‘second hand’ in counting, cf. the use of {*šak-} ‘hand’ in ‘seven 1’), or

it might be some other term; at this point it is impossible to recover the

missing syllable. BI “náⁿpahudí” ‘two’ + ‘stem, bone’ (DS-238b) shows a

morpholexically dissimilar but semantically parallel quinary development.

The PDH and BI forms are not cognate.



Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20130918/c8d186a7/attachment.htm>