Glen wrote
> Even if EB ends up being candy for the brain, I can't personally
see
how we
> can split AA from the Sahara in a credible manner. Berber and
Chadic
on the
> one side and Egyptian, Semitic, Omotic and Cushitic to the other?
Omotic and
> Cushitic would have to seperate away from an EgyptoSemitic group.
Ick. It's
> ugly.
Huh! Where does this come from?
It would appear that AA is divided into two superfamilies
1. Omotic, Cushitic and Chadic (which are peripheral to the core of
AA, and preserve archaic features, having split first and travelled
furtherest) - Southern Tier languages
2. Berber, Egyptian and Semitic (which are closer to the
Saharo-NAfrican core) and are more recent.
This fits the Saharan hypothesis best.
Glen don't go trying to jump to the wrong conclusions here please.
Regards
John