From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61718
Date: 2008-11-18
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
>> 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.)
===========
HS describes a family including Semitic and larger that Semitic.
Historically, Hamito-Semitic was just that : a large family with all the
potential sub-families cognate to Semitic.
Potential, as we have already noticed, because
This is still an unclear family with no clear perimeter and reconstruction.
Hamitic does not any sense alone (for me).
Only the compound Hamito-Semitic makes sense (for me).
I checked that this word Hamitic exists in English to describe north-African
families of HS.
In French, this word is diversely written Ch/kh/h-amitique.
It hardly exists in pratice and its meaning is highly erratic : sometimes
it's a strange synonym of Ancient Egyptian.
A.
========
>
>> 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.
========
Indic is also a linguistic reality.
And the component Indo- leaves out Iran, Turkestan,
etc...
This word is inadequate, as soon as you try to give it a motivated basis.
A.
=======
> 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).
========
What is the purpose of inventing a geographic name like Afro-Asiatic
then kindof phonetically zip it into Afrasian which really sounds so ugly
Even though I'm not a native speaker, I don't want to promote that kind of
monkey talk.
A.
========
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.
========
Do you suggest giving Semitic another name because it's Bible-Based ?
This is the logical step 2 from the step 1 of rejecting Hamito- as an
acceptable component of Hamito-Semitic.
What is the purpose of Cutting Hamito-Semitic in two
and then say that the first half makes no sense ?
It's the cutting procedure in the first place that makes no sense.
Why don't you cut Hamitose and Mitic ?
The word "chamitique" does not really exist at all in French.
It has three orthographies and half a dozen contradictory meanings
and it's out of usage for half a century at least.
I don't think the word Hamito-Semitic is responsible for any hybrid
linguistic-cum-anthropological fiction.
I use it in a strictly linguistic fashion.
And I don't think changing a word makes people less racist.
It would be so easy in that case !!
I believe Afro-Asiatic or Afrasian was invented by Greenberg as a marketing
operation
To promote a self propagandizing myth.
not as a way to avoid possible or potential or virtual "racist" undertones.
And this is why I object to this word in the first place.
This word is not "modern" or "neutral".
It bears the burden of this illegitimate birth.
A.
==========