Nilotic, ‘Nilo-Hamitic’, and Hamito-Semitic: A Reply

Opening ParagraphIn my general classification of African languages, the so-called ‘Nilo-Hamitic’ languages of East Africa were placed in the same subdivision as the Nilotic languages within a much larger linguistic stock called Macro-Sudanic. In a recent review of this work Welmers has suggested the geographic designation Chari-Nile as more appropriate, an emendation in terminology which is herewith accepted. In the same work, the traditional Hamito-Semitic family was accepted with some modifications, not relevant to the present discussion, as another major African linguistic stock, distinct from the Chari-Nile family although perhaps distantly related to it. On this view, the term ‘Nilo-Hamitic’ is inappropriate for this group of languages and the name ‘Great Lakes’ was suggested in its place. In his recent work on the Nilotic languages, Oswin Köhler takes a position very similar to my own in regard to the ‘Nilo-Hamitic’ languages. Moreover he suggests that the Bari-Masai group of languages forming the bulk of ‘Nilo-Hamitic’ is as distant from Nandi-Suk, hitherto always included under the same designation, as it is from the Nilotic languages proper. He therefore proposes a threefold division into Western Nilotic (Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, &c), Eastern Nilotic (Bari, Masai, Lotuko, &c), and Southern Nilotic (Nandi-Suk). I am inclined to agree with him and this view is borne out by the material assembled in the later part of this article.