seven (1)

numeral abstract_number


Proto-Siouan *ša•kú•pa

Proto-Crow-Hidatsa *šáhpua < possible *šákupVhV

Crow sáhpua ‘seven’ GG:55, RGG:82

Hidatsa šáhpua ‘seven’ J


Mandan kú•pa ‘seven’ RTC


Proto-Dakota *šakówį

Lakota šákowį ~ šakówį ‘seven’ RTC

Dakota šákowį ~ šakówį ‘seven’ SRR:440

Proto-Hoocąk-Chiwere *ša•k-

Chiwere są́ʔhmą ‘seven’ [Otoe: są́ʔhmą] RTC , sáhmą ~ šáhmą ‘seven’ [Iowa: sáhmą ~ šáhmą] RR , sá•hmą ~ sáhmą ‘seven’ [Otoe: sá•hmą ~ sáhmą] RR

Hoocąk šaagóowį ‘seven’ KM:2900 , šaagoowį

Proto-Southeastern *sa•ku•mį


Ofo fạ́kumĭ , †fə́kumi ‘seven’ D&S:323b , fA´kumî , †fákumi ‘seven’ MAS:485


Tutelo saagom; sagomēi, sāgōmią, sagomíñk , †sa•kó•m(į) ~ †sa•kú•m(į) ‘seven’ N, H , s’gúm , †sakúm ‘seven’ HW , sakų́ , †sakúm ‘seven’ ES , sagóm , †sakúm ‘three, seven’ LJF

General comment

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 Crow/Hidatsa, Mandan, Chiwere (three subgroups) may be older. An approximate reconstruction might be *ša•ku•pa or *ša•ku•pą. Dakota and Hoocąk 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 Biloxi 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 Mandan); OVS shows only ‘one (1)’. Also, shared remodeling in the neighboring Dakota and Hoocąk 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 Chiwere and OVS, however, the word for ‘seven’ does exhibit this nasalization. We think the Dakota alternants with first syllable stress are due to contamination with ‘six’, presumably from serial counting. This is one of the terms in which Tutelo s, instead of the expected , corresponds to Proto-Siouan . The two long vowels plus the Mandan form suggest that the word was morphemically complex to begin with. We know that Crow/Hidatsa -ua represents loss of an intervocallic glide -- typically h, possibly w. We also know that Crow/Hidatsa 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 Proto-Siouan final vowel remains unresolved.

Details Language Word Source