Talk:Afroasiatic languages

message: I have removed the Table from Ratcliffe (2012) in the section "‎Consonant systems" with the edit summary .
In case you agree with this: maybe we can replace it with a table that visualizes the typological diversity of documented of historical and contemporary AA languages? It is not really necessary since the prose has it all, but if you have come across a table/checklist etc. in one of the sources, it might be a nice addition. We could of course do a feature-based table on our own based on the information in the sources (e.g. Lateral fricatives [y/n], pharyngeals [y/n], ejectives [y/n]), but such a DIY table would rightfully deem as OR to many WP editors, I guess. Austronesier (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable - I’ve been trying to think of ways to improve the table anyway.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratcliffe table 

message: Proto-Afroasiatic language now has a fairly detailed section on Numerals (which is basically just proposed cognates given the state of PAA reconstruction). My question is: is the section here with the numerals comparison still worth keeping? Is it giving our readers useful information? (I'm not arguing in favor of removing it necessarily, I'd just like to make sure that there isn't too much overlap/mismatched content between the articles).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have similar questions about the current sections on derivational affixes. It seems to me that nisba, only found in two branches, would be better handled at Proto-Afroasiatic. The mV- prefix may deserve its own section, as may the verbal prefixes. Alternatively, we could simply have a "derivation" that could then also include other commonalities between the languages (nisba is found in two branches, but adjective-forming suffixes are found in more, for instance). I suppose some of the tables would have to go then due to space.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerals 

message: . I do not believe that the source given for Campbell's views is a good one. It is a summary of his thoughts and not the original source, for one thing. It is primarily discussing Nilo-Saharan for another. And thirdly, Campbell, while a highly respectable historical linguist, is not a specialist in Afroasiatic linguists. I believe his views on Afroasiatic have been discussed elsewhere on this page or at Proto-Afroasiatic possibly and that in most publications he appears to accept the family.
As for Hodge, his book was published in 1990. Quite a bit has happened since then. Furthermore, I do not believe that Hodge was cited fairly, as the intention appeared to be to make the existence of Afrosasiatic appear questionable, (and possibly to suggest that scholars are afraid to say this?). What Hodge actually says is: . The way this was framed in the edit suggested instead that those who believed that Afroasiatic cannot be reconstructed questioned the validity of the family, like Campbell is implied to have done via indirect citation. We already have more recent statements here and at Proto-Afroasiatic that show that many scholars are skeptical of Afroasiatic reconstructions due to time depth.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Campbell and Poser conclude their discussion of Afroasiatic in the book that Austronesier mentions above by saying  While he's clearly more skeptical than most Afroasianists, he does not reject the group.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbell and Hodge