PIE-Semitic contact (Was: The palatal sham :) )

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> 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.

Could you explain that statement, please. I presume you actually
believe it.

> 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.

If nunation and mimation are the same thing. Incidentally, why
can't 'Semitish' be 'North Semitic' rather than 'para-Semitic'?

Richard.