This sounds like "edenics" (as in garden of Eden), which posits that there was original language (probably Hebrew) from which all languages descend. Other popular "original" languages are Tamil, Sanskrit, Basque, or whatever language some nationalist crackpot decides they want to promote. It's totally disconnected from reality. Here's a Language Log post on it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005278.h...
> If you insist (why?) that semitic alphabets can have made no contribution, and you are correct, then the evidence will show that
How could evidence show lack of contribution? You can’t prove a negative like that. You can’t prove lack of influence from Korean or ancient aliens either.
If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.
That work was all done without this new evidence. New evidence might reinforce old conclusions, or undermine them. Nobody knows without the work having been done.
Comparing scripts is the only way to identify similarities and differences. We can be confident Korean is not an influence just on geographic grounds, but all Mediterranean scripts are in play, because whoever started using runes could have been exposed to any or all of them.
You may say nobody can prove a negative, but cocksure deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here.
