>>18092549
>According to whom?
J.P. Mallony.

>After Finno-Ugric, the possibility of Semitic-Indo-European relations has the greatest demand on our attention. Since well into the last century, and indeed still earlier, there have been frequent attempts to demonstrate parallels in vocabulary between the Indo-European languages and the Semitic languages of the Near East. The number of lexical comparisons, depending on one's source and to some extent imagination, is sizeable, and may approach 100-200 among its more ardent proponents. Some of the comparisons invariably find a place in Indo-European handbooks such as Proto-Indo-European *(s)tauro and Proto-Semitic *tawru '(wild) 0x', or Proto-Indo-European *septm and Proto-Semitic *saby 'seven' (alone of the numerals). In the more extensive lists of comparisons, agricultural words constitute approximately a quarter of all the words allegedly shared by Indo-European and Semitic

>Unlike comparisons between Indo-European and Finno-Ugric, the Semitic relations do not really have a general acceptance despite the fact that there are a number of most energetic supporters of genetic links between the two families. Certainly, any linguist running through some of the longer lists of comparisons encounters far too many cases of special pleading. Indeed, in a recent survey of the supposed Semitic — Proto-Indo-European loan words, especially those referring to agriculture and animals, Igor Diakonov has winnowed out almost all of the proposed comparisons except for goat, wild cattle and horn, all three of which he argued were probably derived from a common third source. Now there are, to be sure, some comparisons that will simply not go away such as Greek pelekeus, Indie parasu- 'axe' which is normally set beside Akkadian pilaqq 'spindle, spike', itself a possible loan from Sumerian balag. This would appear to be a typical 'wander word' moving along trade routes between various peoples from the Aegean to the Indus