SV: SV: Paired Horse and PIE breakup

Paul Kekai Manansala kekai at JPS.NET
Mon Nov 9 20:12:53 UTC 1998

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> Paul Kekai Manansala <kekai at JPS.NET> wrote:
> >The former classification had Hamito-Semitic (which included Cushitic)
> >together as a subfamily of Afro-Asiatic.  According to Greenberg,
> >Cushitic and Semitic are not part of the same subfamily.
> Since Greenberg invented the term "Afro-Asiatic", any former
> classification would not have included Hamito-Semitic as a
> "subfamily" of Afro-Asiatic.  And which other subfamilies might this
> mythical pre-Greenbergian "Afro-Asiatic" have had?

Yes you're right, Cushitic was grouped together with Egyptian and Berber
as Hamitic and separate from Semitic.

I confused my arguments (need to slow down).  The separation of Egyptian
from close relationship with Cushitic was what I was getting at. There
are many reasons why this bears on the race problem, but the most
important is the question of the racial identity of the ancient
Egyptians. Another problem is the original "race" of the Afro-Asiatic

Paul Kekai Manansala

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list