Intensive cultural contact is acknowledged between IE and SEM in religion, myth, magic,
literature, art, law, material artefacts, etc. (Burkert 1984; 2003; 2004; Kingsley 1995; West 1999;
Marek 2010).
И менее важное ниже , из за контактов сближение Тохарского и южно-Индоевропейских с Семитскими,
а северных с Финно-Угорскими(возможно здесь прав Григорьев что Древне-Европейцы в эпоху средней Бронзы из передней Азии ушли в южную Сибирь где и могли встретиться с Финно-Уграми после чего отправились в сторону Синташты чему подтверждение смешаные Переднеазиатско-Монголоидные аутлаеры Синташты, и позже дальше в Европу)
On the one hand, the Northern and Western IE branches of Baltic and Slavic match with
Finno-Ugric in their use of oblique cases to encode the primary argument in situations of low
transitivity, at the expense of their old middle conjugation. The same situation is found in fur-
ther Northern branches such as Germanic and Celtic. In Finno-Ugric, the use of verbal voice is
also quite unproductive. On the other hand, Southern and Eastern IE languages, such as An-
cient Greek, Hittite and Indo-Iranian, match with Ancient Semitic in their typical use of nomi-
native experiencers accompanied by verbal morphology with a detransitivizing function.
A similar situation is found in further Eastern branches such as Tocharian.