(Revised Afrasian Subclassification — Ancient Egyptian Grouped with Chado-Amazigh in the Boreafrasian Sub-Branch, Not with Semitic as Previously Classified, …

(Revised Afrasian Subclassification — Ancient Egyptian Grouped with Chado-Amazigh in the Boreafrasian Sub-Branch, Not with Semitic as Previously Classified, More Recent Work Correcting the Internal Relationships Within North Erythraic as Set Out in Ehret’s Earlier Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic, the Newer Conclusions Placing Ancient Egyptian Together with Chado-Amazigh but Not Semitic in the Boreafrasian Sub-Branch, Reconfirmed by a Recent Collaborative Project by Ehret Keita and Brandt): More recent work shows that the internal relationships within North Erythraic as set out in Ehret’s earlier *Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic* are wrongly represented. The newer conclusions place ancient Egyptian together with Chado-Amazigh, but not Semitic, in the Boreafrasian sub-branch. This revision is significant for the cultural history of ancient Egypt: it means that Egyptian’s closest linguistic relatives were the Amazigh (Berber) and Chadic languages of North and West Africa, not the Semitic languages of the Levant and Arabia. The linguistic affinities of ancient Egyptian point westward and southward — toward Africa — not eastward toward the Semitic-speaking world. This revised classification reinforces Ehret’s broader argument about Egypt’s African roots at the deepest linguistic level.