Posted by: sansahansan

Wouldn't you first have to systematically prove that borrowing did occur? Or, even before that, statistically prove the genetic relationship as true or false?
------------------------------------

I am pretty much certain there was either borrowing or possibly parallel evolution. The chances that the correspondences I have recorded are all "coincidence" are beyond mind boggling.


Again though, a rigorous process was defined by which you can describe the odds that you call 'mind boggling'.

However, I will point out that semi-arbitrarily rearranging word parts to construct similarities will make the proof that much harder to swallow.

I would highly recommend, whether you are formally trained or not, to follow the rigorous process first rather than citing individual samples.

In this case/past, you've cited some total of maybe 9 similarities or parallels on shaky grounds. Ignoring the shakiness for a minute and estimating the total arabic words & word parts in existence at around 1.9 million (based on a loose comparison to English) you're still looking at better odds when trying to win the lottery than in *not* finding similar words.

Ignoring the process I think you should follow for a moment... do you have a comprehensive count of the parallels in NA dialects to archaic hebraic/arabic? Do you have a spreadsheet indicating the similarities in each with an explain for each?

If you get past the 2-5000 mark in that spreadsheet, I'm sure you'd start gaining some attention. If you get past the 10k mark, I'm pretty certain you could get published on the theory at least Otherwise, I still blame any coincidentals on the original language holding out parts down through the years via oral traditions or the 'sheer chance' theory that several linguists in the references I cited for you hold to.