From: Rick McCallister
Message: 61707
Date: 2008-11-17
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:
. . .
>
> There appears to be no problem with the use of
> 'Semitic' as a
> taxonomic unit. 'Semitic' appears to be a valid
> taxon, both
> synchronically (cf. the relatedness of modern Arabic and
> modern
> Hebrew) and diachronically (cf. the relatedness of modern
> Arabic and
> Old Akkadian).
>
> But what about 'Hamitic', the first member of the
> hyphenated
> compound adjective 'Hamito-Semitic'? Does it
> represent a valid taxon?
No, it does not. Nilotic speakers of what's now called Nilo-Saharan were once referred to as "Para-Hamitic."
More than anything else, "Hamitic" was used to mean "African, Black".
I just spoke with a colleague, a French professor from West Africa, who told me that while she is aware of the term Chamito-Semitique, that she finds it offensive and obscurantist.
The term is at best quaint and given that we don't call IE "Japhetic", should be relegated to the dung heap of disgarded phrases
. . .