Me (Glen):
>I've been trying for the longest time to try and sway you from the
>confusion between the "Semitish" [...] and the
>early Semites.
John:
>Glen, are you saying here that Semitish are not Semites?
I'm going to cry. Please tell me that this is a rhetorical question. Yes,
yes, yes! The Semitish are NOT the Semites - they had the same or similar
language, DIFFERENT _culture_. I'm now putting my hand on my heart. I think
I feel chest pains. Do you want me to have a heartattack? Is that it? Is
that your evil plan? Oy veh.
And, on what educated basis do you claim that Kramer is a "great authority"
on Sumerian, I wonder. Is it because his theory contains the perfect mix of
high-octane inanity to add fuel to your incomprehensible rebuttles?
Now for John's quote from
Mallory's "In Search of Indo-Europeans":
>As for how close this "Semitish" substrata is to Semitic, I can only
>quote Malory, (p.150) "unlike comparisons between Indo_European and
>Finno-Ugric, the Semitic relations do not really have general
>acceptance despite the fact that there are a number of most energetic
>supporters of genetic links between the two families..... Indeed, in
>a recent survey of the supposed Semitic-Proto-European loan words,
>especially those relating to agriculture and animals, Igor Diakonov
>has winnowed out all of the supposed connections except for goat,
>wild cattle and horn, all three of which were probably derived from a
>common third source (MY SUBSTRATE LANGUAGE).
But Mallory, like you, fails to offer a valid suggestion for this "third
source" and fails to go into sufficient detail to support his claims. It is
an opinion, nothing else. This quote proves nothing at all except that
Mallory's analysis in this regard wasn't a deep one. He was quite
understandably busier with a more pressing work regarding IndoEuropeans
(their language, archaeological evidence, cultural and technical evolution,
etc), than to be dilly-dallying with non-IE languages and hypothetical third
sources.
But it should be quite evident that the assumption of a third source is
needlessly complex when the assumption of influence from one of these
already existant parties into IE and into other languages is available.
Semitic or Semitish fits the bill perfectly based on the linguistics that
you like to sweep under a rug. I use "six" and "seven" alot because they are
known to be Semitic and nothing else.
Being that you are very unaware of linguistics, you don't see this and
continue to argue with me. So be it. It's only a matter of time.
>Now there are, to be sure, some comparisons that will simply not go >away
>such as Greek *pelekus, Indic *parasu - 'axe' which is normally >set beside
>Akkadian pilaqq 'spindle, spike',
It is a very late borrowing and I would question whether it is even from
common IE at all. The word for "monkey" (I believe Greek /kebos/?) also is
as late or later. These words are uninteresting. I will re-quote your quote:
"Igor Diakonov has winnowed out all of the supposed
connections except for goat, wild cattle and horn, [...]"
The word for goat Mallory is refering to is *gheidos which is compared with
Semitic *gadyu. I've found others. Let's discuss:
IE Semitic
bhars- barru "wheat"
dhexWnax "grains" duh_nu "millet"
hendho- h.int.u "wheat"
hegWno- `iglu "lamb" (` = ayin)
(s)teuro- Tawru "bull" (T = "th" as in "math")
weino- waynu "wine"
Gee, I'm a little stupid so you're gonna have to help me out... they almost
seem like words fueled by an economy... almost as if these things were being
traded specifically between IE and a Semitic(-like) language very early on.
I don't see any Hattic words or NEC words or "Asianic" words and you refuse
to list any.
Then of course there are other words like *woid- "to know" and the Semitic
triliterate *w-d-` (perhaps via *wa:di`u), the association of IE *xste:r
"star" with Akkadian Ishtar, the love goddess (aka Venus), and some even
propose IE's "cow" as being Semitic since apparently it shows up in both
languages.
>"Some linguists have suggested that the Hamito-Semitic languages are
>related to the Indo-European languages..... but most scholars regard
>such far-flung genetic ties as unproven and, indeed, hardly provable."
>
>So goodbye Semitish.
Que? No comprendo, senor. Sorry, this is the biggest non sequitur yet. Keep
'em comin' though.
John quotes Enclyclopedia Britannica and blurts:
>"by comparing a list of basic vocabulary items, indicate that
>the first group to separate from the Common Semitic ancestral
>language was Akkadian (Northern Peripheral group, c. 3300 BC)
>[...]"
>
>If "common Semitish" existed as late as Enclyopedia Britannica
>suggests it did, [...]
READ!!! John, this very paragraph is giving you so much trouble and I am not
the only one to tell you that Semitic is WAAAAAY older than 3300 BCE. I
mean, WAAAAAAY older. This date is for the existence of Akkadian from the
Northern Peripheral group, not the date of the split of Proto-Semitic.
Please go over that again.
>I was not arguing that Semitic split 3,300 BCE,
I think the entire List will beg to differ. Your confusion was quite clear
and noticed by others enough for them to have corrected you on it. There's
no shame in making errors but when one insists on them for dear life.
I think my heart just stopped beating... (plop)... (ambulance sirens in
background)... (a dead body lies motionless on a wooden floor of a chic
downtown Manhattan loft)... (camera pans to a black rose on a window sill
and Barbara Streisand sings "Memories")... (fade to black)...
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com