(Revised Afrasian Subclassification: Ancient Egyptian Grouped with Chado-Amazigh in the Boreafrasian Sub-Branch, Apart from Semitic with Which It Was Previou…

(Revised Afrasian Subclassification: Ancient Egyptian Grouped with Chado-Amazigh in the Boreafrasian Sub-Branch, Apart from Semitic with Which It Was 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. They were not the Semitic languages of the Levant and Arabia. The linguistic affinities of ancient Egyptian point westward and southward, toward Africa. They do not point eastward toward the Semitic-speaking world. This revised classification reinforces Ehret’s broader argument about Egypt’s African roots at the deepest linguistic level.