tvn at cis.uni-muenchen.de
Wed Feb 3 23:27:53 UTC 1999
>>Those and related problems do not exist if the earliest Semitic-IE
>>contacts are assumed to have occurred in Europe.
>Why must we assume anything in the first place??
>The Pontic-Caspian theory accounts for much
All theories do.
>and yet for some reason, still unspecified by
>Miguel et al, we are throwing it away for something very conjectural and
>unbased on the linguistic evidence.
Do not throw it away before you have studied alternatives. The theory
of a Hamito-Semitic / West Indo-European contact connection is a lin-
guistic theory, based on linguistic evidence. May I guess that you have not
studied it? Well, do. You may even find arguments against it.
>As far as I know and reason, Semitic
>existing outside of the Middle East at the time we are working with here
>is not accepted by most linguists and it seems that some have trouble
>with Semitic ever reaching even the Black Sea shores let alone Europe!!
This is none.
3 February 1999
PS. In a later posting you write:
>When I post, I post because I'm inquisitive and to
>provoke discussion that would otherwise not go on. I'm one of those
>silly people who thinks that an open discussion leads to better
>understanding (for myself at least).
By calling some linguists' views "something very conjectural and unbased
on the linguistic evidence" you may quell a discussion just as easily as pro-
voke one. It just does not sound inquisitive.
More information about the Indo-european