Re: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

Petusek:

> Well, I should not write superior, perhaps "advanced" might be better,
> although I am not sure wether this would be possible, either.

Sorry, I'm terminologically sensitive.

> OK, that is clear. So, they might have been among the dominant trading
> nations.

Not 'nation' as in country. More like a bunch of tribes who speak the
same language(s).

> If another nation of that region had been so influential, why would
> IE's and other groups not have borrowed the number from Hattians or
> Hurrians or whoever?

Hattians and Hurrians weren't wedged next to the Mediterranean like
the Semites were.

> But, taking into account, they could have used vessels (your idea) to
> trade the North...? I admit this is less probable.

I think that Semites would have travelled so far. They had families,
children and wives. Sure, the coastal cities probably provided ample
supply of temple prostitutes but it's just not enough to live a full
life, y'know? So they would have travelled only so far to trade. The rest
of the trading network would be filled out by other sea-faring people to
reach the north. Imagine a web of sailors, all of which don't have to move
very far from where they live to spread ideas, culture, religion and
language very far.

> If I understand it well, PT *sepa < Ak form sebe or seba, right?

I'm not sure exactly. It's from some Semitic language but I don't know
which one(s) yet. Conceivably, it could also be from Egyptian *safxaw.


= gLeN