Well it's much more Bomhard proposing than me proposing. (I just split Afro-Asiatic into North and South branches, added "Boreanesian", and combined Chuk-Kam and Esk-Aleut.) You got it right; it's basically those four or five first-order branches. Afro-Asiatic (or Afrasian) is about on the same level as Eurasiatic and both comprise of a large number of languages.
As for Afro-Eurasiatic, that would seem to be an alternate name for Nostratic, as it would have to include Kartvelian and Sumero-Elamo-Dravidian. You know, that's not a bad name at all; it would communicate the tri-continental nature of the superfamily!
About Sumerian: Bomhard does link Sumerian with Elamo-Dravidian as a paired branch. The exact family tree given by Bomhard (this will look much better with a monospaced font at 10 pt with an 800x600 or finer resolution):
Notice that Etruscan is not included; he does discuss this in a chapter (as well as Sumerian and Altaic).
Glen in his webpages also adds Basque-Aquitanian, as a VERY distant relative. Others place it in another megafamily: Sino-Caucasian (or a wider and more ambitious variant: Dene-Caucasian).
I don't have Illich-Svytich handy. Dolgopolsky has something simlar to that shown above.
~DaW~
----- Original Message -----From: Gerry Reinhart-WallerSent: Saturday, 22 September, 2001 17:47Subject: Re: [nostratic] Proposal of a name for a possible familyWhat you and Bomhard propose is:-Afro-Asiatic-Kartvelian-Elamite-Darvidian-Sumerian-EurasiaticQuestion: Cannot Afro-Asiatic and Eurasiatic combine to produce Afro-Eurasiatic?Thusly:-Afro-Eurasiatic-Kartvelian-Elamite-Dravidian-SumerianYour analogy of language classification to a cracked windshield is good. Alekseev always said that all languages are related even at the earliest of dates. And why is Sumerian in a category all by itself? Isn't it related to Elamite-Dravidian?Gerry