[Moderatorial note: Don't let the use of the term 'Arabianic' put you off - it's the poster's term for Semitic. I hope Pier will benefit from some clear explanations addressing his more general concerns about PIE reconstructions.
Remember to review the subject line if you reply - this posting could logically be split into many different topics. - JRW.]
Hello and thanks for you works
1/The English word "house" is from Arabianic
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7667
2/The Pre Indo-Iranian word "khsher"(milk),den(religion) and shu(sheep) is from proto Arabianic
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=117070
3/The English word "fur" is from Arabic
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=119472
[ Issue 4 is left in for completeness, but is outside the scope of Cybalist. - JRW.]
4/Is the whole set of the Turkish roots that start with "ö" onomatopeic?
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=91158
5/Very similar Arabic and French sentence from a Lislakh perspective
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6023
6/The Western Asian origin of proto Afrasanic proven by linguistics and by genetcis
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=114735
7/The Arabianic etymology of the IE numerals
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=108559
8/Criticism of the IE theory
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=112644
9/The Western Asian origin of proto IE proven by linguists and by genetics
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9177
10/The Arabianic character of IE languages
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?p=68091#post68091
There is an Arabic dictionnary written in the 13 th century wich is the compilation of older Arabic dictionnaries but whereas those older Arabic dictionnaries do contain as much as 2 mln words, this dictionnary called "lisan al 3arab" does contain more than 5,5 mln words and searching in it I did found around 460 out of around 550 proto Indo-European roots (wich is the total number of Indo-European roots and could be found in wiktionnary) with around 200 Arabic roots that do have identical phonetics and semantics than the Indo-European ones and the other being very similar with rather strict semantics and phonetics.
I do believe that Indo-European descends from proto Arabianic(aka semitic)but due to the wide dispersal of IE languages this is not clear at first sight, all those languages descend from languages steming ultimately from the Kebaran and its continuation Natufian culture.
The similarities between AA,IE on one side and Altaic&Uralic on other side are not genetical but merely very strong sprachbund underwent by those languages (i.e Altaic and Uralic) by advancing Western Asians to Siberia and the similar pronouns and endings between Uralic&Altaic with IE were borrowed from an IE or para IE languages since the languages of the hunter gatherer Altaic and Uralic folks ,due to their way of life, did lack grammar and pronouns and borrowed the whole grammar and pronouns from a Western Asian originated language(s)[IE or para IE/pre IE)and the first pronoun "min" should be connected to Arabianic "min"=>who and "ego" to Arabianic "ku"=>wich...
I think we could connect pie *dwer wich does not have an intrinsic meaning by IE pradigms with Semitic dwr=to turn(since earliest doors should be opened by turning them)
I think also that the proto Afrasanic homeland is western Asia please see below:
http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9177
Here below some 20 criticism points I wrote about IE theory
About the some 500 supposed (constructed or more accurately guessed) hypothetical proto indo-european roots (you can find all the proto indo-european roots in wiktionnary):
1/How could be same roots have such different meanings(for example exist 4 "pel" 1st "pel"=flour,2nd "pel"=gray,3rd"pel"=skin,4th "pel"=flat)!
2/How could be synonims exist with different roots(such as skin which has at least 3 listed different proto ie roots)!
3/Many semantic shifts are very very broad to such extent that with such lax semantics many (constructed or attested)[proto or not]words&roots of different languages in the world can fit as proto Indo-European!
4/Many sound shifts look very unlikely and are against the sound laws!
5/Many supposed proto ie roots are anachronist(door,bourgh,fort...)and could not exist in the language of steppe hordes of the bronze age (according to the pontic steppes "urheimat" model).
6/Many supposed proto ie roots are most likely Semitic loans(star,three,sun,six,seven,eight,home,tree,field,pilaku[axe],barley,field,snow,door,corn,dher,goat,buck..... )as they could not be explained from indo-european intrinsic phonetico-semantic pradigmas
7/Many other roots could be loans from Kartvelian,NW Caucasian,NE Caucasian,Altaic,Uralic&pre Indo-European languages of Europe(Vasconic,Pictish,Tartessian,Pelasgian,Iberi an,Aquitanian,Ligurian,Raetian,Etruscan,Wiik's Saami substratum...)
8/Many supposed proto ie roots are shared eurasiatic and nostratic roots and thus could be loans.
9/Many supoosed proto ie roots are supported by examples of very few Indo-European branches and sometimes by only 1 ie branche,or from only 1-2 branch with very unbelievable sound changes forgetting the innovation,loans and chance propabilities.
[I believe these and subsequent entries are cut and pasted from <
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots> - JRW.]
As an exemple,the supposed pie *h₂éǵʰ-r root has only 2 given examples both in the same Indo-Iranian branch(Avestan and Sanskrit)
h₂éǵʰ-r/n̥- day Skr. अहर् (ahar), Av. azan
10/The sound change du=>er in the Armenian erku=2,if included will make many languages Indo-European,for example proto Semitic thnay(2)is by far closer to proto Indo-European *two(2)than the Indo-European Armenian erku(2) is.
11/A great number of proto indo-european roots are somehow impossibly proununciable as
dngh2wleis=tongue whereas other proto languages roots such as Turkic or Semitic are not only easily proununciable but in the same time are real and existing words with clear Turkic & Semitic etymology and similar derivative words that contain the same consonants which is not the case for the hypothetical proto indo-european roots(not the reflexe words).
12/Very often semitic(as well as other languages)roots are closer to some indo-european reflexes than proto ie do for example proto semitic "lis" (tongue)is closer to Armenian "lezu" and Baltic "lesvis" than proto ie "dngh2weis" do.
[ I converted point 14 to lower case - capitals are equivalent to shouting. - JRW. ]
14/Constructed (or more accurately guessed) hypothetical proto Indo-European roots do lack instrinsic morpho-semantic pradigmas that are able to explain the semantic values not only between the reflexes of the same root but also the derivative expanded "sister" roots=>it's rather arbitrary and unexplainable(looks as a borrowed word or artefact...)by internal Indo-European mechanisms that a constructed hypothetical proto Indo-European root ,let's say "pel" has an x semantics as well as it is(IE the intrinsic morpho-semantic pradigmas of constructed proto indo-european)unable to explain
why such root is indo-european and fits intrinsic indo-european pradigmas and why its homonym "pel" has such a different y semantics(if not why a second homonym root "per" should ever exist
15/The number of the common Indo-European roots shared by at least 3 Indo-European branches is very limited (106 roots) when compared for example with the number of roots shared by languages such as Semitic (more than a dozen of thousands of common shared roots wich do have own meanings) Malay languages etc...
16/Since the guessed proto indo-european roots are not found in any indo-european language(ie of course there is no for example an english word nebhos=cloud)the reflex words in the various indo-european languages are cutted from their roots and their semantico-phonetic derivations and inner pradigmas are rather arbitrary ones lacking a clear system, for example in Semitic every speaker who knows the meaning of a root automatically will know the meaning of its derivatives(example from the root *ktb, the derivative kVtVb(V stands for vowel) is always connected with the active form and nkVtVb with the passive form and so on... ie with clear and well defined paterns a system that is lacking in the indo-european daughter languages in respect with the constructed proto indo-european roots)
17/The linguists often classify Altaic&Uralic as phonetically conservative languages(since the mono and biconsonantic proto roots of Uralic and Altaic are invariable)while classifiying Indo-European,Kartvelian and Afro-Asiatic(the 3 have the rare pecularity amongst world languages of having tri and tetraconsonantic proto roots)are classified as apophonic ie the internal structure of the proto roots can undergo vocalic and consonantic ABLAUT, so if we would reanalyze proto indo-european roots with a semitic model perspective(ie purely consonantal roots with the ablaut of vowels serving as well established models to derivate words and various grammatical forms as well as conjugation paters)perhaps it would open a new horizon for "clogged" indo-european studies(albeit in the same time it would create internal problems such as the below example:
1/ bʰer=brown, shining
Ltv. bērs; bebrs, Lith. bėras; bebras, Old Prussian bebrus, Gaul. Bibrax, Welsh befer, Eng. brūn/brown; bera/bear; beofer/beaver, Gm. brūn/braun; bero/Bär; bibar/Biber, ON brúnn; bjǫrn; bjórr, Skr. भाति (bhā́ti), Av. bawra, Lat. fiber, Russ. бобр (bobr), Toch. parno/perne; paräṁ/perne
2/bʰer=to bear / carry
Skr. भरति (bhárati), Av. baraiti, Russ. брать (brat'), Ir. berid/beir, Welsh cymmeryd, Arm. բերել (berel), Alb. bie; mbart, Gk. φέρω (pherō), Lat. ferō, Umbrian fertu, Eng. beran/bear, Gm. burde/Burde, Toch. pär/pär, Lith. berti, Ltv. bērt, Kamviri bor, Phryg. ber, Goth. ������������ (bairan), ON bera, OCS бьрати (bĭrati), Pers. baratuv/bār, Polish brać, Hitt. kapirt
3/bʰer=to boil
Alb. brumë, Gaul. Voberā, OIr. bréo; bruth; berbaim, Welsh brwd; brewi, Eng. brǣþ/breath; /broth; /brew; beorm/, Gm. brādam/Brodem; braten, ON bráðr, Gk. φύρδην μίγδην (phurdēn-migdēn); phréār; porphurein, Lat. fervēo; fermentum; dēfrutum, Skr. भुरति (bhuráti); bhurnih
4/bʰeres=lively
Russ. борзой (borzoj), Lith. bruzdùs, Welsh brys, MIr. bras, Polish bardzo, OCS брьзо (brĭzo), Lat. festīnō; fastenus; confestim
5/bʰerǵʰ=fort
Russ. берег (bereg), Eng. burg/borough, Arm. բարձր (barjr), Skr. बर्हयति (barháyati), Av. bərəz(ant), Gaul. Bergusia, Gm. berg/Burg, Hitt. parku; en-park, Toch. pärk/pärk, Thrac. Berga, Goth. baírgahī, ON bjarg; borg, Pers. burj, MIr. brí, Illyr. Berginium, Gk. πύργος (purgos), Welsh bre; bera, Lyc. prije; pruwa, Lat. fortis, Alb. breg
ie why the initial 3 "bher" have so different semantics when they have 100% identical phonetics and why the 4 th and 5 th "expanded root" "bheres"&"bhergh" have no semantics similar with at least one of the 3 initial "bher"!?
19/As well as when only a medial vowel is differeing between 2 (consonantly identical) roots such as
*wedʰ=to lead
Russ. веду (vedu), Lith. vesti, Ltv. vads, Ir. fedid/fedim, Av. vāðayeiti, Hitt. uwate, OCS vedǫ, Pol. wieść, Welsh arweddu, OPruss west
and
*wadʰ=to pledge
Lat. vas (g. vadis), Ir. fedid/, Welsh arweddu; dyweddio Goth. wadi, ON veð, Eng. weddian/wed; weotuma/-, Gm. wetti/Wette, Lith. vadas; vaduoti; vedù; vedẽklė, Ltv. vadot; vedu, OCS vedǫ; voždǫ, Gk. éedna, Hitt. huettiya, Av. vadayeiti; upāvādayeiti; vadū; vadrya, Skt. vadhú
20/We know from other language families(Turkic,Semitic...)that some succession of particular consonants/vowels or consonants&vowels or particular morphemes or words starting with a particular vowel and consonant are not possible but since proto indo-european is a hypothetical language we could not know much or verify the phonemic clusters and other phonetic paterns that the intrinsic proto indo-european language pradigmas DO NO ALLOW!
Thank you for you works and have a good day