Re: [tied] "The explanation for Semitish"... one more time :)

>Erh, but the Middle-East and the North Pontic were very, very disconnected
>back then. Again, what is the motivation for this
>faraway trade in the neolithic? If we say that it is *indirect*
>trade through extensive networks, we need to assume intermediary
>languages. However, none are sufficient to explain the bluntly
>Semitic character of IE *septm or *sweks, for example. Hattic
>isn't the intermediary. Kartvelian isn't the intermediary.
>Definitely not NorthEast or NorthWest Caucasian which have their
>own unique numerals. There isn't any language I heard of that
>can credibly serve as a proper intermediary between Semitic and
>IE, except a Semitic-related language itself. Direct trade between
>neolithic Mesopotamia (proto-Semitic wasn't in Mesopotamia!!)
>and the steppes is simply impossible. And proposing direct trade
>between Syria or Palestine and steppes at the time is outright
>kookoo-for-cocoa-puffs. Glen

If the LBKs spoke Semitic (not unlikely?: the first farmers into Europe),
they could have had direct contact with PIE, no? Perhaps this "Semitish"
disappeared when the Tyrrhenians migrated to the Balkan ca.5500 BC
(connection with the flood??), and in the rest of Europe later, when IEs
migrated there ca.3000? Just some thoughts.

Marc