Re: Again - Intermediates to PIE and Semites

OK Glen, since you cannot follow what I am saying let's take this slowly

Indo-European
*sweks
/\
|
|
|
Semitic ? Kartvellian
*s^idc^u <---------- *swekse ----------> *eks1w-

The ? mark language from which all three languages got their number six
from is a substrate language found in the region of Anatolia. Now we
can do the same for seven ansd for wine too if you like. There is no
reason to suppose that we have Semitic loan words appearing in either
IE or Karvellian. Instead we have loan words from a previous language
influencing all three.

Now do you follow what I am saying yet or does it still escape you?

The reason why I am putting forward this explanation is because IT
MAKES SENSE, linguistically, AND archaeologically.

You ask

> Now the question you have to answer is not only how a missing initial
> sibilant reappears in IE but also how Kartvelian "seven" enters IE as

*septm

> with final *-m?? Might I remind you, or inform you if you aren't

aware yet,

> that the meaning of *-m is only explainable in a Semitic context

since it

> has a rational function in Semitic grammar but not in Kartvelian or

IE.

It could equally be a feature that IE and Semitic both picked up from
"?". And the reason why these tow kept them *-m you ezplain well

> IE
> does have an accusative *-m but its use here for a numeral would

hardly be

> explainable in comparison to the Semitic explanation of the same

suffix. As

> well, only Semitic contains the very indivisible root for "seven"

*seb- to

> which the masculine and feminine suffixes are attached... Not so in

the

> genderless languages like IE and Kartvelian.

Agreed. But Semitic must have got its six and seven from SOME OTHER
SOURCE, as it is not found in the reconstructions of proto-Afro-Asiatic
that I have seen. If this is the case, then Semitic must have got these
words (like the word for wine) from some substrate language which was
already present in the northern Middle East BEFORE Semitic arrived.
And that language must have been "?"

Glen wrote

> Please stop confusing Semites with Semitic-speaking people and then

we will

> have an easier time understanding one another. If you dress up a
> Semitic-speaker in Hattic clothing, give her a Hattic roof over her

head and

> have her worship Hattic gods, she's still a Semitic-speaker.

Glen, surely you must grant that my explanation about "?" being the
source of commonly related features found in Karvellian, IE and Semetic
does make more sense than your hypothetical dressing Semitic speakers
up in Khattic clothing, in order for Semitic to affect IE and
Kartvellian. Hypothetical Semitic speakers, disguising themselves as
speakers of another culture, and having no effect upon the Toponomy of
the area in which they were hiding incognito. Is this another case of
the great Joshua disguising himself as a Canaanite in order to spy out
the city of Jericho? Come on Glen... your explanation would surely be
eliminated if we applied Occams Razor, and suggested parsimony of
explanation, that is consistent with what we KNOW of the archaeology
and anthropology of the Middle East.

So when I say

> >Sorry mate, the archaeology doesn't compute. From pre-pottery
> >neolithic stages agriculture did not move from the Semitic into
> >Anatolia, but rather moved the other way. The emmer wheat grown by
>the
> >first farmers in Palestine has just been confirmed to have come >out

of

> >Anatolia, against the flow of languages once again.

And you (Glen) reply

> No, guy. You're confused. Like I've been saying, some Anatolians were
> speaking Semitic dialects with a culture native to the area, farming

just

> like the natives. Please don't get confused. I'm not talking about

Semites

> (the ones speaking Semitic with identifyable Semitic cultural

elements). I'm

> talking about Semitic-speaking people with Anatolian cultural

elements.

>
> You've just confirmed everything I've been saying. What's more, we

just

> don't find native Kartvelian loanwords for agricultural items (unless

you

> can supply some for me). This is because the Kartvelian language was

present

> to some extent in the local economy but was nowhere near as prominent

as

> Semitic. The loanwords are all or at the very least majoritarily

originating

> from Semitic as far as I'm aware and must originate from Anatolia

based on

> the spread of these words.

No its you who is confused. I am not arguing for Kartvellian to be the
source of agricultural words. But rather that Kartvellian, like
Semitic and IE is the recipient of words from a common source - our
substrate "?" And it is this substrate "?" that is the language of the
first farmers of the Middle East - which explains exactly why it should
have been so influential on neighbouring tongues - languages that were
at that time of less sophisticated, less complex cultures.

> Words like *gheido- "goat" and *weino- "wine" are linked to Semitic.

But not to Afro-Asiatic. And the reason why.... yes, you guessed,
because the Semites got it from "?" too.

> Oh I
> suppose we could claim that *weino- is via Kartvelian perhaps

although this

> is unnecessarily more complicated than a Semitic origin since we have

even

> more Semitic words like *bhars- "grain"
> and *melit "honey" that show where the innovations were coming from.

It just

> goes on and on...

Yup, I know. Semites learned farming... and they learned it from
people who were already farmers. So they didn't need to go sneaking
around Anatolia in disguise.

So when I wrote

> >Catal Huyuk and Halicar were huge settlements in which late
>Paeleolithic
> >survivals show they were related to the previous hunter->gatherers

of the

> >area (T group Dene Caucasian Proto-Khattic). Even >the period after

the

> >Black Sea disaster (circa 5,500 BCE) when Catal >Huyuk was

abandonned show

> >a movement of people out of Anatolia, not >of early Semites into

the area.

And you replied

> Again, I stress: not Semites but Semitic speaking people with native
> Anatolian culture.

Cannot you see what I am saying even now?

I wrote

> >This is beginning to sound like a re-run of our Out-of-Africa
> >Into-Africa discussion, but applied to the Balkans now instead of
>Egypt
> >and the Middle East.
>
> Yes, but the difference here is that the direction of Semitic that I

suggest

> coincides with the apparent direction of people and innovation. It

seems

> that now _you_ are fighting against the direction of flow, the flow

of

> language.

No. The direction of Semitic is against the current of people and
innovation. Glen your archaeology is out of date. It was Anatolia
which was the source of innovation, not the Semitic lands of the Middle
East. Grains, metallurgy, pottery, obsidian all came from Anatolia
into the Middle East - not the other way around. It is clearly you
(once again) who is swimming against the tide.

Glen asked

> Who's theory is more conjectural? I'm not hypothesizing that an

imaginary

> language happened to exist, showing absolutely no signs of its

presence even

> in the archaeology that you like to throw at me to attempt to dismiss

my own

> theory!

Yes, who's theory seems to make more sense and is less conjectural?
That Semitic, Kartvellian and IE learned numbers, agricultural terms
and other words from the people who were the first farmers in the area
(my theory), or that early Semites disguised themselves as Anatolians
to spread their words for a number of features to neighbouring groups
(your theory).

Glen again

> I'm simply saying that the Semitic language (a language we know

existed)

> travelled farther than the Semitic culture did. The words for "six"

and

> "seven", complete with uniquely Semitic grammatical suffixes, are

clearly

> from Semitic and nothing else as well as the other words like those

above,

> so your theory still seems more like a desperate attempt at

self-amusement

> by contradiction, something that I am more reknowned for :P

Yes, and I am just saying that the Semitic language and the Semitic
culture, until much later travelled together as a common cultural
package, but was influenced in neolithic times by people who had a
higher level of culture, the people who invented farming, metallurgy,
pottery, and much ealse besides. A people known to have provided a
linguistic substrate to much of the ancient Middle East. A people also
known to have taught agriculture to PIE and Kartvellian speakers too.

Perhaps in your persistence to hold onto your theory, we are just going
to have to say that we agree to disagree.

Warmest (though tired) felicitations
John