IE & Semitic roots. Was: Script on excavated terracotta seals from Harappa deciphered????

[B. Reusch]

At 7:53 PM +0100 11/10/97, Jacob Baltuch wrote:

>In either case (IE and Semitic) the vowel is not _normally_ part of
>the meaning of the root (ok, with exceptions for IE). All the meaning is
>in the consonants. The possible grades (not all attested of course for
>all roots) are the same in principle for all roots, e, e:, o, o: or zero.
>
>I mean the very _fact_ that you can say the root is normally given as CeC
>shows that the vowel is not intrinsic. If the vowels _were_ intrinsic
>you would have roots CeC but also roots CoC etc. (Compare with Sanskrit
>where the vowel is part of the meaning of the root: 'dih' is not the
>same root as 'duh').

Interesting point.
If understood that when writing _IE_  you are tacitly referring
*exclusively* to PIE (is that it?). When comparing with Semitic, is that
PIE vs *all* Semitic languages or PIE vs *Proto*-Semitic?

Beatrice Reusch
University of California, Berkeley