Re: Early Indo-European loanwords preserved in Finnish

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

> Because it [Semito-Hamitic] creates a false dichotomy between
> Semitic and non-Semitic, presupposing that all non-Semitic AA
> languages form one branch. Given what we know about
> AA, that is misleading at best and comes across as
> ignorant

The problem here I presume is that we now seem not to have a branch
called Hamitic. In the interests of Anglo-French acronymic agreement,
would English 'Chado-Semitic' (CS) be acceptable? Or is
'Indo-Germanic' to be disparaged as ignorant?

> --- "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

> > What is supposed to be wrong with
> > Semito-Hamitic
> > or Chamito-sémitique ?
> >
> > Personally, I think the "symmetrical"
> > Afro-Asiatic from "Indo-European"
> > is not better,
> > The symmetry crumbles when
> > PIE becomes part of CS.

Should not Semito-Hamitic-Japhethic then be simplified to Nohic?
(This is not Noahism!) Actually, such a group would then meet my
preferred definition of Nostratic sensu lato - the crown clade of the
original languages of the sacred texts of the people of the book.
(Avestan and Sanskrit can be added to taste - they do not change the
meaning of the term.)

Richard.