John:
>[Semitish] would have to have spread from Central Anatolia to Southern
>Palestine, and across to the Zagross Mountains before 9,000 BCE. By >8,500
>BCE these three areas were experimenting with early agriculture, >so you
>have Semitish separate from Austro-Asiatic some time between >10,000 and
>8,500 BCE, crossing from Africa into the Middle East, and
>then discovering farming independently at least twice.
I will quote someone's previous "non sequitur".
The sources you "dig up" for us are best left buried and I'm not the only
one who has critiqued them for their inadequacies. The connections between
IE and Semitic numerals are accepted by many as being ultimately of Semitic
origin (whether from a third, fourth or 100th source) and can be seen with
the naked eye. You are correct, though, that there are few widely accepted
opinions on the reasons for these borrowings but this is currently part of
the Wild West of IE studies. Get your cowboy hat on.
>Interesting that Tyrrhenian (which probably was already present in
>Anatolia anyway, being part of the West Anatolian-Balkan Kulture
>Urheim from the earliest Neolithic) could stop the spread of Semitish
>into Europe
The "stop" of the spread of Semitish is a more minor detail and not vital to
my overall thoughts. I waiver on this point because I remain unsure of how
far this Semitic influence could have gone. If you wish, we could agree on a
slightly more northerly locale for Tyrrhenian.
The spread of Semitish through west Anatolia (c 7000 BCE) is a very easy one
if they have access to the Mediterranean. We can plead that Hattic and high
density populations brought it to a halt but I think a language can spread
along a coast very easily despite this. The spread of Semitish would have to
occur early before the agriculture from Catal Huyuk came about.
>>It was Semitish that fully adopted agriculture and spread up the >>west.
>>The Semitic obviously didn't and stayed technologically >>"inferior" as
>>you say.
>
>Semitish that developed agriculture and spread it west?
No, the above quote I made says "adopted agriculture" and I think I've
already made it clear that I acknowledge that the Semitish couldn't have
actually invented agriculture. Re-read.
>Strange when such writers as Mallory and Diakonov agree with me that
>the Semitish words you see in IE are common borrowings from a third
>source.
It is their opinion (just an opinion, that one can disagree with) and after
writing a book, I should think that they're entitled to giving theirs. The
third source can be "Semitish" so everybody agrees then? :)
>I ain't seen nuthin' in any public library here in Australia Glen.
>Maybe Canadian public libraries are different than Aussie ones. So
>when you write....
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, I find, is an excellent source and starting
point to get a handle on the wide array of language families that exist. I
know that you have access to this but I notice you often misread things and
go astray. If you had read this text properly, you would be aware of the
origin of Hungarian /hat/ (*kutte) which is very openly displayed in a table
of cognates under the Uralic section of "Languages of the World". Unless
your public library has large kegs of beer in it and drunken ol' men singing
sailor songs, I'm sure you can find great sources to snuggle with if you use
your noggin.
And even if you do find great sources, it's still up to us who read them to
criticize their premises. If we don't, we become part of the thoughtless
masses who think their profession disqualifies them from forming an educated
opinion about a study that doesn't bring home the bacon.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com