On 2008-11-18 00:10, Francesco Brighenti wrote:
> And I forgot to add that there was demonstrably a Proto-Semitic
> language, but not at all a 'Proto-Hamitic' one!
The problem with Hamitic is that it was never properly defined in
comparative terms, and its original definition was based on criteria
which were part typological, part non-linguistic (anthropological). It
was the unequal status of Semitic (a bona fide "clade") and Hamitic (at
the very best, a paraphyletic unit) that prompted Greenberg to propose a
new name for the re-defined hypothetical family. Political correctness
and questions of nomenclatural priority aside, I find the name
Afroasiatic less confusing than Hamito-Semitic. As for its status as a
valid family, it's a borderline case, nowhere as solid as Indo-European
or, say, Austronesian. There's enough evidence to justify a relationship
hypothesis (with the probable exclusion of Omotic), but hardly enough to
clinch the case by presenting a convincing reconstruction of the
protolanguage.
Piotr