> Martin, I have a question I don't know where else
> to put.
> The early German scholars believed Egyptian is a
> semitic language and basically approached it with
> that mind-set, correct me please if I am wrong.
> The one criterion I am interested is the stative
> verb-form. It give a certain sense of realism to a
> story. When I use it instead of the preterite, I
> make the account more real. It is a dramatizing
> effect. So I am familiar with how it feels to use
> the stative in spoken language but an English
> speaker may not. Is the stative a tell-all
> characteristic of semitic languages or is there
> another criterion you think is more important.
> Also, why might Egyptian not be a semitic
In Ancient Egyptian: A linguistic introduction, Antonio Loprieno has this to say:
“Ancient Egyptian represents an autonomous branch of the language phylum called Afroasiatic in the USA and in modern linguistic terminology, Hamito-Semitic in Western Europe and in comparative linguistics, Semito-Hamitic mainly in Eastern Europe. Afroasiatic is one of the most widespread language families in the world, its geographic area comprising, from
antiquity to the present time, the entire area of the eastern Mediterranean, northern Africa, and western Asia.”
He lists Ancient Egyptian as a separate and sui generis branch of the Afroasiatic family, distinct from Semitic. I do not know on what criteria he does so.
Regarding the stative, he tells us that it “exhibits close kinship to the suffix conjugation of Semitic and Berber”.
This is as much as I know. Like so many things, it is on the agenda.