Me:
>However, as I told Miguel *septm would have to be from
>Common Semitic since East Semitic doesn't work to explain
>the mimation chronologically or geographically.
Miguel:
> East Semitic is the *only* solution that works to explain
> the mimation.
You lie. It is not the only solution. The clear solution
is _Proto-Semitic_ itself. Where do you think mimation
comes from? When I say that East Semitic doesn't fit
chronologically or geographically, I really mean it doesn't
fit time-wise or area-wise.
The loans happened very early. Based on the sound changes
I've observed internally in IE, everything is consistent
with about 6000-5500 BCE, the early Mid IE period. IE was
not to the "east" unless we're talking East Europe, and it
wasn't in Anatolia unless you want to pursue what we know
to be a baseless idea of the Gamrelidze/Ivanov-let's-
reconstruct-a-word-for-elephant kind, so Common Semitic
or its para-sidekick will have to do to explain the
observed facts, not East Semitic.
The only way to deny this solution would be to claim
somehow that mimation is purely an East Semitic thing
but it's not last time I checked. It's in Proto-Semitic,
since it's not only present in Akkadian but Arabic too.
= gLeN