Editing Afroasiatic languages (section)

==Classification history==
A relationship between Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and the Berber languages was perceived as early as the 9th century CE by the Hebrew grammarian and physician [[Judah ibn Kuraish|Judah ibn Quraysh]], who is regarded as a forerunner of Afroasiatic studies.{{sfn|Lipiński|2001|p=21}} The French orientalist [[Guillaume Postel]] had also pointed out similarities between Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic in 1538, and [[Hiob Ludolf]] noted similarities also to Geʽez and Amharic in 1701. This family was formally described and named "Semitic" by [[August Ludwig von Schlözer]] in 1781.{{sfn|Frajzyngier|Shay|2012|p=4}} In 1844, [[Theodor Benfey]] first described the relationship between Semitic and the Egyptian language and connected both to the Berber and the Cushitic languages (which he called "Ethiopic").{{sfn|Lipiński|2001|p=21}} In the same year T.N. Newman suggested a relationship between Semitic and the Hausa language, an idea that was taken up by early scholars of Afroasiatic.{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=270}} In 1855, [[Ernst Renan]] named these languages, related to Semitic but not Semitic, "Hamitic," in 1860 Carl Lottner proposed that they belonged to a single language family, and in 1876 [[Friedrich Müller (linguist)|Friedrich Müller]] first described them as a "Hamito-Semitic" language family.{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=269}} Müller assumed that there existed a distinct "Hamitic" branch of the family that consisted of Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic.{{sfn|Frajzyngier|Shay|2012|p=4}} He did not include the Chadic languages, though contemporary Egyptologist [[Karl Richard Lepsius]] argued for the relation of Hausa to the Berber languages.{{sfn|Hayward|2000|p=84}} Some scholars would continue to regard Hausa as related to the other Afroasiatic languages, but the idea was controversial: many scholars refused to admit that the largely unwritten, "[[Negroid]]" Chadic languages were in the same family as the "[[Caucasian race|Caucasian]]" ancient civilizations of the Egyptians and Semites.{{sfn|Ruhlen|1991|pp=87–88}}{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=271}}

[[File:Africa ethnic groups 1996.png|thumb|upright=1.3|Distribution of ethnic groups in Africa (Afroasiatic/Hamito-Semitic-speaking in yellow)]]
An important development in the history of Afroasiatic scholarship – and the history of African linguistics – was the creation of the "[[Hamites|Hamitic theory]]" or "Hamitic hypothesis" by Lepsius, fellow Egyptologist [[Christian Bunsen]], and linguist [[Christian Bleek]].{{sfn|Solleveld|2020|p=204-205}} This theory connected the "Hamites", the originators of Hamitic languages, with (supposedly culturally superior) "Caucasians", who were assumed to have migrated into Africa and intermixed with indigenous "Negroid" Africans in ancient times.{{sfn|Meyer|Wolff|2019|p=251}} The "Hamitic theory" would serve as the basis for [[Carl Meinhof]]'s highly influential classification of African languages in his 1912 book ''{{lang|de|Die Sprache der Hamiten}}''.{{sfn|Güldemann|2018|p=61}} On one hand, the "Hamitic" classification was justified partially based on linguistic features: for example, Meinhof split the presently-understood Chadic family into "Hamito-Chadic", and an unrelated non-Hamitic "Chadic" based on which languages possessed grammatical gender.{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=271}} On the other hand, the classification also relied on non-linguistic anthropological and culturally contingent features, such as skin color, hair type, and lifestyle.{{sfn|Ruhlen|1991|pp=82–83}} Ultimately, Meinhof's classification of Hamitic proved to include languages from every presently-recognized language family within Africa.{{sfn|Hayward|2000|p=84}}

The first scholar to question the existence of "Hamitic languages" was [[Marcel Cohen]] in 1924,{{sfn|Frajzyngier|Shay|2012|p=5}} with skepticism also expressed by A. Klingenheben and Dietrich Westermann during the 1920s and '30s.{{sfn|Meyer|Wolff|2019|p=251}} However, Meinhof's "Hamitic" classification remained prevalent throughout the early 20th century until it was definitively disproven by [[Joseph Greenberg]] in the 1940s, based on racial and anthropological data.{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=271}}{{sfn|Güldemann|2018|p=309}} Instead, Greenberg proposed an Afroasiatic family consisting of five branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, and Semitic.{{sfn|Meyer|Wolff|2019|p=251}}{{sfn|Gragg|2019|p=22}}{{sfn|Frajzyngier|Shay|2012|p=5}} Reluctance among some scholars to recognize Chadic as a branch of Afroasiatic persisted as late as the 1980s.{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=271}} In 1969, [[Harold C. Fleming|Harold Fleming]] proposed that a group of languages classified by Greenberg as Cushitic were in fact their own independent "Omotic" branch—a proposal that has been widely, if not universally, accepted.{{sfn|Meyer|Wolff|2019|p=251}} These six branches now constitute an academic consensus on the genetic structure of the family.{{sfn|Porkhomovsky|2020|p=272}}

Greenberg relied on his own method of [[mass comparison]] of vocabulary items rather than the [[comparative method]] of demonstrating regular sound correspondences to establish the family.{{sfn|Hayward|2000|pp=86–87}} An alternative classification, based on the pronominal and conjugation systems, was proposed by A.N. Tucker in 1967.{{sfn|Hodge|1971|p=11}} As of 2023, widely accepted sound correspondences between the different branches have not yet been firmly established.{{sfn|Winand|2023|p=40}}{{sfn|Huehnergard|2023|p=140}} Nevertheless, morphological traits attributable to the proto-language and the establishment of cognates throughout the family have confirmed its [[Genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetic validity]].{{sfn|Güldemann|2018|p=347}}{{sfn|Frajzyngier|Shay|2012|p=3}}