English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

about «the questionable usefulness of classificatory schematizations» (Renfroe 1992 7) can easily be found on the pages of Semitological treatises. In spite of this trend, various aspects of genetic classification of Semitic have always occupied many of the best minds working in this branch of comparative linguistics. A proper evaluation of the subgrouping procedure as applied to Semitic languages has been admirably outlined in a recent survey by John Huehnergard «Classification and subgrouping of language families are among the most important of the comparativist’s tasks, and this obtains in our field, too... Indeed, classification and subgouping should inform comparative work and historical reconstruction, for these activities are inextricably interwined ... In other words, classification is not simply a mind game...» (Huehnergard 2002:130) A coherent classificatory pattern of Semitic has two facets several major splits and unities are to be postulated and proved, such as East Semitic vs. West Semitic or Central Semitic vs. South Semitic; simultaneously, the common origin of each minor subdivision (Cannanite, Aramaic, ESA, Ethiopian,

COMMON ORIGIN OF ETHIOPIAN SEMITIC: THE LEXICAL DIMENSION