From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61684
Date: 2008-11-16
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> [...]
>
>> Please use the currently accepted designations
>> Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian. Hamito-Semitic et al. is not
>> scientific and smacks of racism. There is no Hamitic
>> branch and the term Hamitic is rooted in pseudo-scientific
>> racist dogma that originally tried to find justification
>> in the Bible by tainting Africans as accursed "sons of
>> Ham".
>
> It also implies the primary split is between Semitic and
> everything else, which is certainly not demonstrated and
> contrary to every classification that I've seen.
>
> Brian
>
=========
This is about as shallow as thinking the word indo-european suggests a
primary split between Indic and the rest...
And Semitic is the only Asiatic branch,
so the problem is the same with either name.
There is no reason to think the primary split is between the African part or
the Asiatic part.
A completely artifical name like Lisramic could make sense,
but I think it's not necessary.
The traditional name is perfectly acceptable.
Arnaud