From: Miguel Carrasquer
>Miguel:The different gender forms are the least of it. The -m, or lack of it, is
>> Other than in the case of "7", where a borrowing directly
>> from Semitic is likely, in the case of "6" the likelihood that
>> the borrowing was indirect is much greater, given the total
>> lack of Semitic morphology.
>The "lack" of Semitic morphology in *sweks is a false issue.
>It is also senseless to conclude that both "6" and "7", being
>in differing gender forms
>, shows that the two numerals wereAt different times or from diffeent sources. Or both.
>borrowed at different times. Not necessarily so
>>>Can we not date Proto-Semitic to around 6000-5500 BCE?Why?
>> Surely not. I would put the (Pre-)Proto-Semitic area in
>> Palestine, [...] [9th millennium, [...]
>This cannot be supported seriously. Putting aside the fact
>that Semitic is not sufficiently diverse to even consider
>such a ludicrous date, reconstructions like *kaspu "silver",
>*ti?n- "olive", *kuna:t_- "emmer", *h.int- "wheat", *s'i`a:r-
>"barley", *`inab- "grape", *gapn- "vines" and *wayn- "wine"
>negate your untenable point of view completely.
>> I don't think so. Gender polarity was used inconsistently inNo it isn't. Cushitic does not have the typically Semitic distribution of
>> the oldest NW Semitic sorces (Ugaritic), which might indicate
>> that it was a recent innovation at the time, [...]
>_Might_ indicate. And yes, other BETTER solutions are possible.
>Since gender polarity is a feature of AfroAsiatic based on
>> The NW Semitic area had early contacts with Egypt, but didNW Semitic was spoken in Palestine and Syria, not in Western Turkey.
>> not interact much with regions to the North.
>What are you talking about now? Are you denying cultural
>spread from Western Turkey into Europe.