Amedeo

I have expressed no opinions at all about Vedic, Avestan, or anything Persian. It would be fruitful to show a list of words whose etyms are also found in Greek or in Sumerian or Akkadian. Then those words would be called IE words. I would say that if a language has at least one half of its etyms which are IE etyms, then the language should be classified as Indo-European. (The 50% idea is arbitrary and is debetable. I don't know of any existing criterion for doing that classification. I do not have sufficient knowledge of ancient Eurasian languages to determine whether the sharing of the morphology of the Greek language would be a distinguishing mark of "Indo-Europeaneity.") -- Of course, in saying all this, I am still using Greek as the standard Indo-European language. (The huge lexical and morphological correspondence between Latin and Greek shows that they are ramifications or species of one language, "Aegean." But, thus far, I cannot claim that Latin is an Indo-European language on account of the shared morphology. I just do not know if some lexically foreign languages have a similar morphology.)

premjan

You should just drop the Indo-part and call it "European" in that case.

Amedeo

In view of what I have been thinking, I could speak of Sumero-Greek WORDS. Languages whose core consists of Sumero-Greek words would be called Sumero-Greek languages. They would constitute a super-family or SPECIES of languages.

It would not matter, if Sumerian and Greek languages were derived from other languages. The point is that SG words define a species of language, and the SG words are attested in Sumerian and Greek writing. The species [namely "Sumero-Greek languages] is thereby defined by real languages at their historical stage of being written down.

Hypothetically, one of the SG languages, which has no early record of writing, could be the parent-language of Greek or of Sumerian. Therefore, the standard languages which define a species are not to be construed as the historical parents of all the other languages of the species. (Each language in the species is a linguistic race. The species defining races are not necessarily the races from which all other races evolved.) A distinction is being made here between the classification of lsome languages and the history of such language.

Suppose that Latin is takes as the standard language for defining a species. Then we finds that Italian, Spanish, Romanian, French, etc., are members of a spcies, which can be called Romance Languages. But imagine, for the sake of argument, that Latin at an earlier historical time was the parent of Greek. In that case, the core of the Greek language would have to be Latin, just as the core of Italian or Spanish is Latin. The preponderant number of Greek words would have to be Latin; the minority of its etyms would be borrowed and coined ones.

For various reasons, I would say that proto-Arabic is the parent of Semitic languages (Eblaite, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Hebrew, etc.), but the earliest written language in the group may be Eblaite. At the same time, I do not know the difference in the VOLUME (number) of written etyms between Eblaite and Hebrew, and finally we do not know the percentage of Semitic words in the Levantine languages [Eblaite, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Hebrew, Babylonian, etc.) I'd like to use Proto-Arabic as the standard language of the species "Semitic Languages," by the scarsity of written Proto-Arabic presents an obstacle.

What I proposed earlier was to use a pragmatic method, not intended for defining the species: Those words in the aforemntioned Levantine languages can assuredly be called Semitic, if they are encountered in Early Arabic, Ethiopic, and any other "sounthern" Semitic language. The words of theirs which have cognates with SG words are not Semitic: they are boroowings or a substrate of said Levantine languages.
(In my view, the aforementioned Levantine language are hybrid language of the Semitic species and the Sumero-Greek species./ So, what seems to be Semitic in SG languages is actually what is SG in the Levantine languages: There was no diffusion of the Levantine languages into SG languages.)