Responding to the above, Tom Güldemann criticizes attempts at finding subgroupings based on common or lacking morphology by arguing that the presence or absence of morphological features is not a useful way of discerning subgroupings in Afroasiatic, because it cannot be excluded that families currently lacking certain features had them in the past; this also means that the presence of morphological features cannot be taken as defining a subgroup.
ɹᵻspˈɑːndɪŋ tə ðɪ əbˈʌv, tˈɑːm ɡˈuːldᵻmən kɹˈɪɾɪsˌaɪzᵻz ɐtˈɛmpts æt fˈaɪndɪŋ sˈʌbɡɹuːpɪŋz bˈeɪst ˌɔn kˈɑːmən ɔːɹ lˈækɪŋ mɔːɹfˈɑːlədʒi baɪ ˈɑːɹɡjuːɪŋ ðætðə pɹˈɛzəns ɔːɹ ˈæbsəns ʌv mˌɔːɹfəlˈɑːdʒɪkəl fˈiːtʃɚz ɪz nˌɑːɾə jˈuːsfəl wˈeɪ ʌv dɪsˈɜːnɪŋ sˈʌbɡɹuːpɪŋz ɪn ˌæfɹoʊˌeɪsɪˈæɾɪk, bɪkˈʌz ɪt kænˈɑːt biː ɛksklˈuːdᵻd ðæt fˈæmɪliz kˈɜːɹəntli lˈækɪŋ sˈɜːʔn̩ fˈiːtʃɚz hˌædðɛm ɪnðə pˈæst; ðɪs ˈɔːlsoʊ mˈiːnz ðætðə pɹˈɛzəns ʌv mˌɔːɹfəlˈɑːdʒɪkəl fˈiːtʃɚz kænˈɑːt biː tˈeɪkən æz dᵻfˈaɪnɪŋ ɐ sˈʌbɡɹuːp.