Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

Miguel:

> So the form PIE would most likely to have have been in contact with
> outside of the Arabic Peninsula was *s^ids^- or *s^idc^- in any case
> [...]
> [*] note that "7" is irregular in East Semitic: we have <sebe> for
> expected *<s^ebe>.

If so, then how does that make sense for a prehistoric Semitic loan? How
old do you think Proto-Semitic is? Where would "East Semitic" have been at
the time in your view.


= gLeN