> Guillaume writes:
> I think a high date - 5000 BC at the very least is necessary for
proto-semitic, and much more for the hypothetical proto-Afroasiatic.
> The same goes for IE. I think proto-IE should also be dated back
to 5000-6000 BC on the very least unless we supose the languages
evolved xceptionnaly quickly.
I wonder about that. It is interesting that what is commonly
accepted as the youngest Semitic language (Arabic) generally has
maintained a large amount of very original grammar and vocabulary,
being closer to proto-Semitic than many of the older established
languages (ef Akkadian or Canaanite for instance). This, for me,
would tend to show a narrow gap between the split of Semitic and the
present... (It would be a little like finding Russian Slavic was the
closest language to PIE in grammar, vocab and morphology - suggesting
perhaps a fairly recent split of IE).
A second feature. I have heard anecdotally, that it is much easier
to learn a second Semitic tongue once you know one than is the case
with IE. To my untrained ear, Hebrew and Arabic sound remarkably
alike.
Shalom, or should I say Salaam to you all
John