Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-25621594-20141104095935/@comment-24222836-20141108005939

The name of an individual doesn't necessarily have any relation to an ethnic group; the name of one king doesn't necessarily have any connection to the modern ethnic group. In this case, it certainly doesn't have any connection, and shouldn't be taken to have any.

Secondly, the ethnic group you refer to probably didn't live in the same place it did today in 400 BCE. Nor did it even exist in its modern form in 400 BCE. A great deal of linguistic changes and population movement occurred between then and now, which brought said group to its modern position and form. So if an ethnic group inhabits a different area ATL than OTL, this shouldn't be surprise, and explains most linguistic and etymological differences.

This is especially true because, in the althist you refer to, the ethnography and geography of the Sahara are very different. The survival of Saharan paleolakes resulted in some Saharan and sub-Saharan groups remaining sedentary rather than nomadic, while the population movements created by an earlier and reversed Bantu migration caused other groups to move in different directions or be destroyed entirely. In short, ATL African ethnography =/= OTL linguistic ethnography. Hope this clears up any confusion.