Hittite is an Indo-European language, so it's probably safe to assume that its word for "pour" is related to the Latin word for "pour." The French word obviously comes from Latin. These are legitimate.
But then she suddenly jumps to the German word for "avalanche"—why? There might be a semantic connection, but it's not explained. Where did the German word come from? Maybe it's borrowed from French, or maybe it has an entirely different and unrelated origin. We don't know.
The English "lavish" doesn't add much—it's borrowed from French and descends from the French and Latin words already listed. Legitimate, but not particularly meaningful.
Then suddenly she jumps to a seemingly unconnected Latin word meaning "to lift." There's no evidence presented to back up the claim that it's has anything to do with the sunrise, but she appears to use that to show that it's connected to other words referring to things like lightning and lava. Which meaning came first, though? If the word means "to lift," then the sunrise connotation probably came later. This would indicate that it's an unrelated word that's associated with something glowing and fiery, not a glowing, fiery word that came to mean "to lift."
Then there's some more jumping around and random listing or words that start with the letter l, but if there's any connection of meaning, it's pretty tenuous, and it's never explained. But the whole argument seems to hinge on the word lava, and that's where any semblance of legitimacy completely breaks down.
You see, the word lava is only a few hundred years old, and it comes from the Italian word for "to flow." It's just another form of the same Latin word listed at the beginning, and it has nothing to do with fire or glowing or lightning or any of those other meanings.
The other huge and completely illegitimate jump is the one from the Hebrews to the Indo-Europeans. The "evidence" for the origin of the Levites is based on words from a completely different language family. There is no known relationship between the two families. They might as well be taking about various birds in an effort to explain the origins of Homo sapiens.
They've taken a smattering of word-snapshots from a handful of languages and tried to string them together. However, they never once talk about the origins of any of those individual words, about the sound changes or semantic shifts, or about the genetic relationships of the languages being discussed.
The whole book (from the previous post) and this whole article are nothing more than racist, sexist pseudo-science.
