Re: [TIED] Hebrew and Arabic

In defence of Semitish, Glen wrote

> 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.

For Semitish to have been in Europe at the time that you say, Glen,
it
would have to have spread from Central Anatolia to Southern
Palestine,
and across to the Zagross Mountains before 9,000 BCE. By 8,500 BCE
these three areas were experimenting with early agriculture, so you
have Semitish separate from Austro-Asiatic some time between 10,000
and 8,500 BCE, crossing from Africa into the Middle East, and
then discovering farming independently at least twice. The first
farmers in Europe came from West and Central Anatolia. There is no
trace of any cultural element from Palestine or any other area of the
Near East (except for your strangely hypothesised invisible people,
possessing an invisible culture with an equally invisible language).

You accuse me of re-writing comparable linguistics. Not at all.... I
find it strange that you accuse me of re-writing comparative
linguistics when the Semitish element in IE itself, from the sources
I
have dug up, are not commonly agreed upon by those of far greater
expertise in the field than a solfware writer in Canada or a
Community
Development practitioner in Australia can muster. I find you are
busy
rewriting archaeology to fit your highly suspect linguistic theories.

In reply to my

> >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,

Glen wrote

> 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.

Interesting that Tyrrhenian (which probably was already present in
Anatolia anyway, being part of the West Anatolian-Balkan Kulture
Urheim from the earliest Neolithic) could stop the spread of Semitish
into Europe, while Hattic, in Central Anatolia, or Hurrian in Eastern
Anatolia, were incapable of doing the same, even though they had far
greater population densities at this period.

>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.

Semitish that developed agriculture and spread it west? Not in
Anatolia it didn't. Catal Huyuk and the erarlier cultures of
Anatolia, as James Melaart shows, developed in situ out of the late
Upper Paleolithic or mesolithic cultures of the area. They may have
been late Nostratic (proto-Steppe), or Dene Caucasian, but it was
certainly not Semitish.

Thus in reply to my

> >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?

Glen writes

> 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.

Strange when such writers as Mallory and Diakonov agree with me that
the Semitish words you see in IE are common borrowings from a third
source.

> 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.

"Commonly known facts available in a public library?" Glen. Please
give references. Apart from yourself and a vague reference to
Blomard
I ain't seen nuthin' in any public library here in Australia Glen.
Maybe Canadian public libraries are different than Aussie ones. So
when you write....

> 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.)

all I can assume is that you don't have the evidence, linguistic or
archaeological.

Regards

John