John to Dennis:
>I think we can now conclude this discussion. When you write :
>
> > 4. Whatever the linguistic situation was in the Aegean at the period
> > we are talking of, it was probably reflective of a similar diversity
> > (if not greater) than that found in pre-Roman History (witness the
> > discussions on linguistic diversity in prehistoric times we have > been
>having on list recently).
Dennis in response:
>This is exactly my thinking. I've not been arguing for a Semitic
> >substratum. I basically think that the whole notion of linguistic
> >homogeneity across Anatolia, Greece, the Aegean and perhaps into the
> >Balkans in neolithic [...]
In the Balkan/Anatolian area, I hope we can all agree that a pure linguistic
homogeneity was never ever the case. In fact, I would like to make clear
that the map that I have drawn out on my site is not meant to be "That's the
way it is, case closed" but rather an inexact attempt at pinpointing the
location of the _major_ identifiable languages of that time, ignoring any
unnecessary complexities like the existence of minor languages that may have
died out without a trace. Semitish, of course, would not be one of those
languages if we're finding patently Semitic-like words abounding in IE
vocabulary, far too far away from Palestine to be glibly and vaguely labeled
"Wanderwort" with unknown origins.
Oh, by the way, I'm starting to precise on the lifespan of Semitish,
which I think is datable from 8000 BCE to 5000 BCE. It was 8000 BCE that the
language can be tracked in part by archaeological sources to have reached
Anatolia as part of a kind of "Semitoid linguistic area" stretching back
towards Palestine. The northern language would develop for the next 3000
years. Starting 7000 BCE, Hattic was spreading west, eventually severing
contact between Semitish and Semitic. By 5000 BCE, Hattic would have taken
over in West Anatolia as Tyrrhenian languages ate away the Semitish language
in Europe.
The date of 5000 BCE seems reasonable to me since it's prior to
IndoAnatolian spread and it gives sufficient time for the language to
completely evaporate without a trace by historic times. Of course, Greek
then would not have been affected by Semitish since they are not
contemporaneous with each other like John's Asianic is supposed to be.
I also have to check out some things yet to be sure. The disappearance of
Semitish by that time would have shifted linguistic ties a bit, giving a new
twist to the evolution of Proto-EtruscoLemnian if I'm right...
Hmmm. Hold yer horses, folks. gLeNny's theorizin' again...
- gLeN
PS: Anyone know some good "Rhaetic" sites on the web? Must get more
acquainted with that mysterious Tyrrhenian language.
PPS: John's usage of Linear A and other completely undeciphered
scripts of Crete in no way lends credibility to his Asianic
theory but rather hurts it more by infusing yet more unknowns.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com