>It is interesting that you find it unarguable Glen, but then its easy
>to claim the oposition's arguments are unarguable - I'm doing the
>same to you after all ;-)
It is unarguable because of the archaic features present in the Semitic
words found in IE. The word *sweks shows a medial stop+sibilant combination
(*-ks-) which appears in the reconstructed Semitic form *s^idTu (*-dT- where
T equals "th" as in "thin"). How do you explain this temporal agreement? The
word entered IE well before 3500 BCE. As has been stated before, at this
date, IE was already splintered into dialects. Common IE must be earlier,
maybe even 5000 BCE as Guillaume states (although I think that this is
little too early for Common IE). At any rate, in order for Semitic words to
enter the language, Semitic or Semitish had to have existed even way back
then. It is commonly understood that Semitic is this old. Only you, John,
are rewriting comparative linguistics to suit your fancy.
>In the time that Semitish swam against the tide of influences coming
>out of Anatolia into the middle east, between 6000-5000 BCE you say,
>and the Hattic and Indo-Tyrrhenian peoples stood by idly and allowed
>the foreigners to take all their best agricultural land across the
>Mediterranean coastline,
Erh, no. The Tyrrhenians were moving into the Balkans from the north and
east at around the same time, halting or at least slowing the progress of
the Semitish into Europe. As for the swim against the tide, this doesn't
have much weight if we consider the possibility that the area at which these
influences were playing out were completely absorbed by one language or
language group already. Perhaps the Semitish already had some of the
Mediterranean coastline when agriculture came about in the area. It was
Semitish that fully adopted agriculture and spread up the west. The Semitic
obviously didn't and stayed technologically "inferior" as you say.
>Isn't it possible that a language, related to Nostratic, found in the
> >Middle East BEFORE Afro-Asiatics left Africa, was the source of BOTH >the
>features you find in the later Semitic languages AND in >Kartvellian and
>PIE?
No, no, no. Give this idea up. It was a Semitic or Semitic-like language,
pure and simple. You're simply not reading carefully. I would shun to think
how you would make computer programs with such unordered reasoning. Can you
please acknowledge the linguistic examples I'm giving you and accept that
assuming an intermediary but completely unattested language is a
multiplication of hypotheses in opposition to Occham's Rasor (or is it
Ochim... well never you mind, you get my drift). Your Logic is faulty.
Me (Glen):
>Back to the tell-all numerals, the origin of Semitic-looking IE
>*sweks & *septm or the even stronger influence on Kartvelian (examine
>Georgian ekvsi "6", s^vidi "7", rva "8" [cf Arabic arba "4"]) can't be
> >effectively explained with the vague "Aegean" influence arguement. >John
>will inevitably be assimilated to Semitish.
John:
>It is highly likely that a pre-Semitic agricultural culture in which
>ownership of herds is of concern would have more interest numbers [...]
>
>"Inevitable" Glen??? Hmm.... I wonder
When one fails time after time to acknowledge commonly known facts that are
accessible at a public library like those above that I can't for the life of
me drill into you, inevitable may take a very long time, yes indeed.
If I fail to answer your next post, you'll know that you've frustrated me
into a nervous breakdown (But don't worry, I live in Canada so you won't
need to pay for the medication.)
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com