Re: More Etymology!

On Feb 13, 10:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What did "Semitic" and "Indo-European" separate from?

Semitic, in my opinion, was Afro-Asiatic blended
with Magdalenian. Magdalenian: mainly words of
three letters or phonemes, Semitic: syllables of
mainly two letters or phonemes. Indo-European
arose with the casting of bronze in the Andronovo
culture - new technology new language.

Evidently you are not aware that Semitic is but one of six members of
the Afroasiatic phylum.

Yes, but the one most influenced by Magdalenian
in the form of Urfan, the variety spoken at Göbekli
Tepe (all working theses of mine).

I hope you're not thinking of Saul Levin again; he never claimed that
"Semitic" and "Indo-European" are related. His claim is that "Semitic"
and "Indo-European" were in a close borrowing relationship -- though
he doesn't explain how only Biblical Hebrew, Classical Arabic, and
Classical Greek and Sanskrit exhibit the relevant phenomena.

Your good friend professor Saul Levin whose book
you called crap. Similar things happened to other
good friends of yours. Your good friends live
dangerously ... Joke aside: it surprised me to see
a strong influence of Magdalenian in Semitic.
And I am not alone in seeing northern influences.
Rolf Krauss, in his book on Moses, claims a
strong Iranian, Zoroastrian, influence in the
Jewish religion; the Iranian towers of silence
have their origin in Göbekli Tepe; and Göbekli
Tepe exerted influence in the whole of the
Levante including Semitic tribes and language ...

Various critics have picked out the worst of what you have to say, and
have refuted it, and you never answer their refutations. No one
bothers any more.

Then I argued with them, and in the end I won,
since I had more and better arguments, In some
cases I lost and recognized my mistake, for
example when I stated that computer technology
alone had created 200,000 new English words.
You pointed out my mistake, we had ourselves
a battle over weeks, as I remember; finally I
realized my mistake - it must be 20,000 new
English words that were created by information
technology - and how my memory constructed
the wrong number, and soon as I saw that I
apologized to you and the makers of a radio
program (look up the thread Plausibility Check).
When I see that I am wrong I apologize for my
mistake, but when I am right I insist on my views,
always with arguments. I don't accept verdicts
from above, a prioris, ex cathedras, eo ipsos,
and anyways - these are mere droppings, not
arguments as required for a scientific discussion.

Now please, please, puleeease: pick out a single
topic for further discussion, I can't go on this way,
replying to ever longer and lo-onger and lo-o-onger
replies.

End of the fifth part of my very long reply.



.

Loading