Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:31:03 -0800 (PST), enlil@... wrote:

>Miguel:
>> So the form PIE would most likely to have have been in contact with
>> outside of the Arabic Peninsula was *s^ids^- or *s^idc^- in any case
>> [...]
>> [*] note that "7" is irregular in East Semitic: we have <sebe> for
>> expected *<s^ebe>.
>
>If so, then how does that make sense for a prehistoric Semitic loan? How
>old do you think Proto-Semitic is?

I have no idea. I suspect somewhat older than PIE.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...