> In Ancient Egyptian: A linguistic
> introduction, Antonio Loprieno has this to
> “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.
lol, you want to hide your own rationale behind Loprieno?
I tell you again: his rationale is wrong. But that's a bit hard to prove without him explaining why he made those choices. I even can't find Charlatans rationale. jeez, I wonder why: are you all repeating the same assumption, without even understanding there is no scientific base? And now you want me to accept any of his statements? Who is that dude anyway? Are you referring to yet another charlatan who doesn't care to explain his fundamental rationale?
Lol, this is insane. Please, bring more sources to add to the charlatan lists. I tell you now: All Egyptologists are charlatans or unscientific disciples.
Again, it doesn't matter who, what or when did ever what. It's the sound that's is fixed. The rest is product of interpretation and imagination. And again, you can derive all rules, grammar, styling, classification what you want, but if the base is wrong, the end-results will be wrong. And that is exactly where we are now.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01-Dec-18 18:09 by Duketown.