--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
> Chamito-Semitic word does not imply there is a Chamito family.
So what *does* the term 'Hamitic' imply instead?
(NB: Please let us spell the term 'Hamito-Semitic' correctly on this
linguistic forum, whose medium is English; if you, for your own
reasons, wish to use the French term 'Chamito-Semitique' instead, so
be it, but, please, be so kind as to avoid introducing a hybrid Anglo-
French term such as your "Chamito-Semitic" in all evidence is.)
> And Indo-European word does imply there is an Indo or European
> family either.
'Indo-' and '-European' relate in this case to a geographic reality,
not a linguistic one. This has been already been pointed out to you
by another discussant. The same can be said for the term 'Afro-
Asiatic' (or 'Afrasian', which lays less stress on the 'Asiatic'
member languages of the family). On the contrary, the Bible-derived
adjectives 'Semitic' and 'Hamitic' (in French, 'Semitique'
and 'Chamitique'...) relate to a hybrid linguistic-cum-
anthropological reality which, in the case of 'Hamitic', has in fact
even been proved to be a non-reality.
> All this game on words is childish and BS. This time, you are
> making a fool of yourself, Egregio Francesco.
I think I have been polite in my earlier messages in this thread; I
certainly have not offended you at all. Please refrain from this
language and see to argue against my very simple & clear points
instead.
Regards,
Francesco