Re: Origin of *h2arh3-trom 'plough'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:

>
> IMHO these Germanic-Afrasian (especially Semitic) isoglosses must
> reflect the languages spoken in Central Europe Neolithic.
>
> This is in accordance with Villar's model, where Neolithic farmers from
> Anatolia spoke paleo-IE dialects à la Renfrew. Together with
> Afrasian, they will constitute a branch of Eurasiatic which expanded
> with agriculture à la Bomhard, although the real "Nostratic" is much
> more reduced than the one proposed by Nostraticists.
>

Notice I've reused the term "Eurasiatic" to name the phylum to which paleo-IE dialects belong.

> But the word 'earth' would descend from the language(s) spoken by the Neolithic farmers, so it
> would be related to the Afrasian word.
>

The Afrasian word is reconstructed by Militarev as *?aritK'- 'earth' (> Semitic *?ar(V)K'-), where the gottal stop /?/ would correspond to /h1/ in IE reconstructions. Sound correspondences have to be consistent, as otherwise we'd doing pseudo-science, something of which Brian accused me.

Also IE *h2arh3-tr-o- 'plough' would be *cognate* (i.e. not borrowed from) to Semitic *X\VruT- 'to till, to plough; arable land', both inherited from the language(s) spoken by Neolithic farmers.