I am curious how the author analyzes other words that scholars have identified as forms of the same verb, which has generally been understood as "give": ta-na-i

I am curious how the author analyzes other words that scholars have identified as forms of the same verb, which has generally been understood as "give": ta-na-i-301-u-ti-nu (IO Za 6), for instance, or a-ta-i-301-de-ka (ZA Zb 3). As Brent Davis has argued it sure does look like the root is i-*301 with prefixed and suffixed elements, rather than some trilateral n-w-y (also "dwell" and "give" are pretty far apart semantically). Accordingly I would be surprised if the idea that this is a Semitic language makes it through peer review, and leading with such a far-fetched claim doesn't inspire much confidence in the article or the idea that Linear A has been "cracked."