I feel like I owe you people another post and besides, the matter of Etruscan haruspicy might be too heavy for many of my readers since I normally get more comments when I rant about Indo-European and its prehistorical development. This has been a distracting week for me and as you can see, I'm running at one post per three days. Bleh! I have too many ideas floating in my brain and I can't keep it in. I'll surely explode if I don't spill it out.
I was just thinking again about Proto-Semitic loanwords in Pre-IE and my hypothesis that they were adopted specifically during the height of the Mid IE Period. I always use *sweḱs (from PSem *šidθu 'six') and *septḿ̥ (from PSem *sabʕatum, masculine form of 'seven') as easy and quickly convincing examples which show how Pre-Proto-Indo-European (Pre-IE) and Proto-Semitic (PSem) are sure to have had a dirty love affair sometime during the Neolithic. I say 'dirty' because it strikes me that the more conservative of comparative linguists avoid the topic of early Indo-European and Semitic relations, perhaps finding it too historically shocking or too 'tentative' to bare. I personally feel that we should be talking more about it because there are some interesting factoids and possibilities lurking within that time period just waiting to be teased out with our intellectual tweazers.
Take one of the most basic verbs in the Proto-Indo-European language *ʔes- 'to be'. Years ago now, I proposed to members of one of my online linguist groups I was a part of that there seemed to me to be a curious similarity between this verb and Akkadian išū 'to have' which, it turns out, was also employed to mean 'there is'. The usage is much like in French where 'il y a...' translates to English as 'there is...' but it literally means 'it has there...'. In other words, there is a natural tendency to apply verbs of possession to convey presence in many languages, and for that matter, verbs denoting presence can be used to express possession, as in Turkish or Hebrew where 'I have' is expressed literally as 'it is to me'.
Considering that Akkadian išū comes from the Semitic triliteral root *yθw, I really can't let go of the idea that early Indo-European speakers, along with some numerals, might have borrowed this verb from Semitic speakers as well. Upon thinking about the dynamics of how this would take place, I figure that a form like *yiθ /ʔ͡jɪθ/ would have been heard by Mid IE speakers as *es /ʔes̪/. Since Indo-European speakers probably never had a dental alveolar fricative /θ/, they would have most likely interpreted it as an apico-dental /s̪/ nine times out of ten, much like how some French or Chinese speakers may at first pronounce English 'thin' as /sin/ in their attempts to approximate a sound quite foreign to them.
If it's true that IE had borrowed this verb from Semitic, I wonder then if it was first used in a restricted way to only mean 'there is' and thus conjugated only in the third person singular. I believe that originally IE didn't have a verb like 'to be'. To say 'I am', 'you are' or 'she is', one would use the personal pronoun in a verbless sentence. This is done in many languages worldwide both living and dead, including Etruscan (e.g. Etruscan Mi clan Aviles (ama). = 'I (am) the son of Avile.').
At any rate, it's something to chew on, isn't it? Or... should I say, "hasn't it"? Hehehe.
 As I've defined before in my previous blogrant "Mid Indo-European", Semitic and Neolithic numerals, Mid IE is the state of Indo-European between approximately 6000 and 5000 BCE, in the heart of the Neolithic period. I use it as a convenient label to quickly mention timeframes without constantly stating date ranges and also to keep the proper chronology of developments in Pre-IE crystal clear in my head.
 See Lipinski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (2001), p.488 (see link): *yṯw 'to be (present)' and its reduced copula form, *yṯ.