From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 53955
Date: 2008-02-22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Early Indo-European loanwords preserved in Finnish
> On 2008-02-22 04:28, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>
> > What would you prefer to use to designate the non-Semitic/non-Egyptian
> > languages of Afrasian then?
>
> Why should we want to treat them as a unit if they don't constitute a
> well-defined subfamily within AA? It's like asking what we should call
> the non-Indo-Iranian, non-Greek and non-Italic members of IE.
> Currently, there's no consensus on the subdivision of AA. If there's
> anything most experts agree on, it's a primary split of AA into Omotic
> and non-Omotic (Flemming's Erythraean), with some uncertainty about the
> classification of Ongota (Omotic, Erythraean, more basal than either or
> non-AA at all?). Within "Erythraean", Chadic has been regarded as the
> sister of Berber, of Egyptian, or as an outlier against the rest of the
> group (again with some uncertainty as to the position of Beja).
>
> Piotr
Fine. Omotic and non-Omotic (Erythraean) until further clarification.
Patrick