Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] "The explanation for Semitish"... one more time :)

Expand Messages
  • Marc Verhaegen
    Thank you very much, Glen, for this summary of your view. Some questions (excuse my ignorance): - If I understand you well, IYO the Bandkeramiker must have
    Message 1 of 2 , May 1 1:53 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you very much, Glen, for this summary of your view.

      Some questions (excuse my ignorance):
      - If I understand you well, IYO the Bandkeramiker must have spoken
      Tyrrhenian? Is Hittite a Tyrrhenian or an IE language IYO?
      - At that time 7000-6000 BC, the Balkan was Anatolia, since the Bosporus &
      the Black Sea did not yet exist?
      - Could the replacement of "Semitish" by Tyrrhenian-speaking people have
      something to do with Noah's flood? (when was that? 5300 BC?)



      >There are some other very suspicious
      >roots like *teuros "bull" (*Tawru-) as well.

      I just read in my newspaper about a recent paper in Nature by Dublin etc.:
      our European cattle did not descend from the indigenous Bos primigenius (ie,
      it was not domesticated here), but from cattle introduced here a few
      thousands of years ago from the Middle-East.

      Marc
    • Marc Verhaegen
      ... If the LBKs spoke Semitic (not unlikely?: the first farmers into Europe), they could have had direct contact with PIE, no? Perhaps this Semitish
      Message 2 of 2 , May 7 2:36 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >Erh, but the Middle-East and the North Pontic were very, very disconnected
        >back then. Again, what is the motivation for this
        >faraway trade in the neolithic? If we say that it is *indirect*
        >trade through extensive networks, we need to assume intermediary
        >languages. However, none are sufficient to explain the bluntly
        >Semitic character of IE *septm or *sweks, for example. Hattic
        >isn't the intermediary. Kartvelian isn't the intermediary.
        >Definitely not NorthEast or NorthWest Caucasian which have their
        >own unique numerals. There isn't any language I heard of that
        >can credibly serve as a proper intermediary between Semitic and
        >IE, except a Semitic-related language itself. Direct trade between
        >neolithic Mesopotamia (proto-Semitic wasn't in Mesopotamia!!)
        >and the steppes is simply impossible. And proposing direct trade
        >between Syria or Palestine and steppes at the time is outright
        >kookoo-for-cocoa-puffs. Glen

        If the LBKs spoke Semitic (not unlikely?: the first farmers into Europe),
        they could have had direct contact with PIE, no? Perhaps this "Semitish"
        disappeared when the Tyrrhenians migrated to the Balkan ca.5500 BC
        (connection with the flood??), and in the rest of Europe later, when IEs
        migrated there ca.3000? Just some thoughts.

        Marc
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.