tgpedersen wrote:
>> So, in order to find IE-AA links we must first reconstruct AA
>> itself. All IE-Arabic comparisons are worth nothing without it.
>
>
> Only if you assume Proto-IE borrowed from Proto-AA.
>
>
> Torsten
>
>
Not exactly. Taking only Arabic is dangerous. And I mean not only possible
borrowings. Let's consider two situations:
1) Take modern Spanish and modern English and try to reconstruct
Proto-Indo-European.
2) Take English, German, Gothic etc., try to reconstruct Proto-Gmc., then
take this reconstruction and Latin and try to reconstruct PIE.
Which way is better? Is the way nr. 1 worth anything? And do you need to
assume Proto-Gmc. borrowed from Latin in order to estimate both ways?
Btw. Classic Arabic has preserved most Semitic features but not all of them.
Particularly, it merged Semitic *s with *s^ (take Hebrew and you will find
it), and it rebuilt conjugation (take Akadian). Enough?
And explain please in which the difference is, that one between the way nr.
1 above and the fantastic ideas of P. Ryan to compare Arabic and Germanic.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com