Re: CHAT: R: Italian Particles

Sally:
> And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > Ray:
> > > All the evidence points to (insular) Celtic as being _originally_
> VSO.  Why
> > > this should be so is AFAIK unknown and one of those features that
> > > "Celto-Semitists" like to point as evidence of Semitic influence  :)
> >
> > Why the smiley? Is the notion of there being a Semitic substrate beneath
> > insular Celtic so daft? (What I find less plausible is that there'd be
> > a Semitic substrate in the British Isles but not in Iberia or Atlantic
> > France.)
>
> Me too.
>
> But I'm with And on this one.  A year or so ago I tried, imperfectly, to
> summarize some of the points made by Orin Gensler in his recent thesis
> on the subject, which is an enormous collation and commentary on all the
> arguments concerning the Celto-Hamitic connection, and it was scoffed at on
> the basis of my summary.  Go read the books on it, that's my advice.  It's
> one of the world's more interesting linguistic "problems," which doesn't
> deserve complacent dismissal before everything that has been written on it
> has been read.
Could you post the bibliographical details? [Excuse me if someone else
has already asked this. This thread is going under various titles, & I'm
not sure if I've found all relevant messages.] I do remember you desribing
the linguistic evidence. What I'm curious about is whether the known history
of Afro-Asiatic is compatible with the Neolithic lgs of Atlantic Europe
being Semitic.

--And.