posted
Djehuti: According to late Beja specialist Werner Vycichl, Beja has three ways of expressing plural, reduplication (not found often), last vowel shortening & suffixation of -a. The two former, although not based on the same exact pattern of Semitic, are clearly non-concatenative, hence dissimilar to Old Egyptian suffixation.
Chapter VI, pp. 88-89
code:
Some examples of Berber "broken" plural formation: aghiul "ass"; pl ighial asgass "year"; pl.isgassen ir'allen "arm"; pl. ir'allen illi "daughter"; issi "pl."
Again Berber is totally different from Egyptian: s3t "daughter"; pl. s3wt ib "heart"; pl. ibw
How can one claim that Hamito-Semitic does actually exist relying on this?
The dual is frequently used in Akkadian, Ugaritic & Arabic, which may suggest that it is only secondary in other Semitic languages.
code:
Akkadian: -aan (dative), een (genitive), iin (accusative); Ugaritic: -aami (nominative), eemi (genitive/accusative) Hebraic: -ayn Syriac: -En~-een (only found as a retention in two words) Ethiopian: -ee (only found in a few cases) Arabic: -aani(nominative) -ayni (genitive/accusative)
While Berber doesn't make grammatical use of dual, it seems to agree with Semitic in occurrences of natural pairs (suffixes -in,-en, -an for dual are also found in Semitic) :
code:
adar "foot" pl.idaren tit "eye" pl. allen aDalis "lip" pl. dilsan (Ghadamès) aDaluy "lip" pl. iDlay "lips" (Ahaggar)
Semitic languages originally marked three principal cases:
There is however a class of words whose both genitive and accusative are formed with the same suffix -a.
In Egyptian, Pharaonic and Coptic there are absolutely no traces of casual marking. Why would the most archaic synchrony of Egyptian have lost any trace of Proto-Hamito-Semitic as Akkadian (a language contemporary to Pharaonic Egyptian) did?
The truth is that Hamito-Semitic does not exist. This is a myth with no morphological basis. A myth that must be destroyed by the real science.
posted
Erratum: Of course, at the end of my last post, I meant "why would have Akkadian retained the casual marking system while Egyptian didn't at all?" & vice versa.
Hence, there are forms with: -an initial sh: Akkadian & Southern Arabian (except Sabean) -an initial h (for the rest, except Ethiopian) (while Ethiopian dropped the initial h and then evolved from 'wu>wu>wE & 'iy>yi>yE and the following suffixation of the final element -tii/tuu)
The two forms are of Proto-Semitic origin, but which one is the earlier? There is no consensus on the question.
However, those forms are completely absent in Egyptian from Pharaonic to Coptic where there are no gutturals nor post-alveolar fricatives, only s (feminine sing.), f (masculine singular), and sn (plural) for the personal suffix pronoun; sw, sy, sn, st (masculine & feminine singular, masculine & feminine plural), for the deopendent personal pronouns; ntf, nts, ntsn for the independent personal pronouns.
Berber's dependent personal pronouns are the following:
The Berber suffix pronouns (s (singular), sn (pl. masc), snt (pl. fem.), agree a bit with Egyptian, but this a superficial resemblance: Berber doesn't have the Egyptian f.
Wolof has the same forms for the third person , singular & plural; Obenga cites Serge Sauneron who said that the resemblance cannot be due to chance and is thus necessarily due to a common origin of the two languages.
Egyptian has no relative pronouns while Semitic & Berber have.
posted
Not to overwork you but can you use the code tag to make tables.
code:
singular masc. singular fem. plural masc. plural fem. Akkadian shu shi shunu shina Ugaritic hw hy hm hm Hebrew huu hii hEm(ma) hEn(na) Syriac huu hii hennoon henneen Arabic huwa hiya hum(uu) hunna Ethiopian wE'Etu yE'Eti 'Emuuntuu 'Emaantuu
The above is more easily intelligible than the below
posted
^ Of course similar discrepancies can be found in the languages of other phylums, even Indo-European but of course not as much as Afrasian which is much older.
What do you think accounts for such discrepancies? Simple divergence and independent evolution? Influence from languages of other phylums, or both? What about Nilo-Saharan languages of the area?
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course similar discrepancies can be found in the languages of other phylums, even Indo-European but of course not as much as Afrasian which is much older.
What do you think accounts for such discrepancies? Simple divergence and independent evolution? Influence from languages of other phylums, or both? What about Nilo-Saharan languages of the area?
What it shows is that these languages are not related to Egyptian!
posted
^ Then going by similar discrepancies in grammar, one could say Persian and Albanian are not related to Greek, or that Burmese and Newari are not related to Chinese. But the majority of linguists say otherwise.
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then going by similar discrepancies in grammar, one could say Persian and Albanian are not related to Greek, or that Burmese and Newari are not related to Chinese. But the majority of linguists say otherwise.
Please post linguistic examples which link Persian and Greek.
glose Semitic Egyptian Berber sun shmsh (common Semitic) r’, re tafukt year sn (Lihyanitic) rnpt rompE rompi asggas shaanaa (Hebrew) sanat (Arabic) place macom (Phoenician) +maqam bw, ma ida night Arabic layl grH, D3w iD Ethiopian leelit Hebrew luun, liin Ugaritic lyn name +sumum, samum rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn ism, isEm take ! Sabat ! (Akkadian) m, mi, mo ameZ ear sinn (Arabic) msDr ameZZugh sEn (Ethiopian) teeth Akkadian uzun Tst axs Assyrian uzan Hebrew ‘ozen Arabic ‘uDn Ethiopian ‘Ezn brother Akkadian axu sn, son g-ma, ait-ma (pl.) Ugaritic ax Hebrew ‘aaH Syriac ‘aHaa Arabic ‘ax Epigraphic South Arabian ‘x Ethiopian ‘Exw (labialized x) to enter Akkadian ‘rb ‘q, 3q, ook ekSem Hebrew ‘rb Syriac ‘rb Arabic Grb Epigraphic South Arabian Grb black ‘aswad (Arabic) km, kamE, kEmi isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen blood dam (common Semitic) snf, snfw, snof idammen beautiful Hasan (Arabic) nfr, nofre, nofri iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki eternity ‘almiin (Eastern Syriac) D.t, nHH, EnEh god il (Ugaritic) nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE rEbbi (Arabic Allah) soul Hebrew nepesh b3, bai RroH, laRuaH (pl.) Syriac napsha Arabic nafs Ethiopian nafs river naaru (Akkadian) itrw asif hand yd, yad (common Semitic) Dr.t, ‘ (« arm ») ufus, afus house bayit (Hebrew) pr tigemmi head +ra’sh common Semitic tp, apE, afE agayyu, ixf reeshu Akkadian roosh Hebrew ra’s Arabic
In conclusion, the results of a strict linguistic analysis are the following : -There are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies, personal and relative pronouns. -About verbal themes, the use of reduplication does not have the same extension in Egyptian and in Semitic. -Also, Egyptian doesn’t have the prefixal conjugation found and the derived compound verbal themes found in Semitic. -The verbal forms sDm.f and sDm.n.f don’t exist in Semitic. -Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic : Egyptian m « as, like » vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ; Egyptian xr « upon, above », vs Akkadian ‘l, Ugaritic ‘l, Syriac ‘al, Hebrew ‘al, Arabic ‘ala, Ethiopian la’la « upon, above ». Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon » -Inherited lexical that can hardly be borrowed from a language to another (see examples above) even in a situation of cultural linguistic dominance are different in Semitic, Egyptian and Berber. Cardinal numbers (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 100, 1000) are also much different in the three language groups.
Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be happy to post "easier to read" tables, but I would need somebody to tell me how to do it.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then going by similar discrepancies in grammar, one could say Persian and Albanian are not related to Greek, or that Burmese and Newari are not related to Chinese. But the majority of linguists say otherwise.
Please post linguistic examples which link Persian and Greek.
.
Are you trying to claim that Ancient Egyptian language is more related to Mande than it is to Berber languages of northwest Africa??
Btw i think it's quite easy to post relationship between Farsi and the Greek language.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yonis, don't even bother. The guy is seriously mentally confused. Clyde thinks the ancient Persian language is the same as the Elamite language! LOL At the same time he claims Farsi (modern Persian) to not be a descendant of Old Persian but a language that was recently introduced to Iran! LOL
Oh, and of course he thinks Elamite "a.k.a. Old Persian", Sumerian, and Dravidian all sharing ancestry with Mande! LMAO
Yes, the guy is mental. Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then going by similar discrepancies in grammar, one could say Persian and Albanian are not related to Greek, or that Burmese and Newari are not related to Chinese. But the majority of linguists say otherwise.
Please post linguistic examples which link Persian and Greek.
.
Are you trying to claim that Ancient Egyptian language is more related to Mande than it is to Berber languages of northwest Africa??
Btw i think it's quite easy to post relationship between Farsi and the Greek language.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yonis, don't even bother. The guy is seriously mentally confused. Clyde thinks the ancient Persian language is the same as the Elamite language! LOL At the same time he claims Farsi (modern Persian) to not be a descendant of Old Persian but a language that was recently introduced to Iran! LOL
Oh, and of course he thinks Elamite "a.k.a. Old Persian", Sumerian, and Dravidian all sharing ancestry with Mande! LMAO
Yes, the guy is mental.
You don't know anything about me . You must be talking about your father, before he left you and your mama in that whore house she worked in to bring you here to America where she continued her profession.
Are you trying to claim that Ancient Egyptian language is more related to Mande than it is to Berber languages of northwest Africa??
Yes , the Mande languages are closely related to Egyptian . They share vocabulary and grammatical features.
code:
Language Chief city,village black/burnt Dravidian cira,ca uru kam Elamite salu Sumerian sar ur Manding sa furu kami 'Charcoal' Nubian sirgi amr uru-me Semitic sarr ham Ubaid sar ur Egyptian sr mer kemit 'blackland' Hausa sarki birni Paleo-African *Sar *uru *kam
In Black African languages including Egyptian the -n, is used to show negation. In Egyptian we often find -nn, e.g., nn wn 'there is nothing'.Egyptian the negative is formed by the –n, n ntf pw m3’t “it is not he in truth “.In Elamite the negative is formed by an uninflected nominal derivative in -n (active participle), e.g., ink 'I not", inr 'he not' and ani 'not'. This suffix is analogous to the Mande negative suffix -na, employed as a suffix to -ka, e.g., ka na ku na tara so "I did not say I was going to the house" .
The Egyptian and Mande languages have similar verbs. The verbs 'to come, to be, to arrive': Egyptian ii, ey and Manding ya,dya . The term to cultivate ,Egyptian bj(w) and Malinke be.
There is genetic affinity of consonants within the Manding and Egyptian languages especially the occlusive bilateral sonorous, the occlusive nasal apico-dental /n/ and /m/ , the apico-alveolar /r/ and the radical proto-form *sa: 'man, female, posterity' in Black Africa,e.g., Egyptian sa 'man' and Manding si,se 'descendant, posterity, family'.
The affix -w, and -u are used to form plural substantives, e.g.,Bambara ba 'mother' , pl. bau and Egyptian pr ‘house’, pl. prw ‘houses’.
In conclusion whereas COTONOU_BY_NIGHT makes it clear that "there are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies". We find that regarding Egyptian and Mande the languages share consonantic structure, formation of the plural, lexical items and grammatical features.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You don't know anything about me . You must be talking about your father, before he left you and your mama in that whore house she worked in to bring you here to America where she continued her profession.
ROTL
I only know you from the ridiculous posts you make in this forum all the time. But obviously you don't know my mother, and I certainly hope those ridiculous references to her aren't subvertly racial being she's Asian.
But obviously I hit a nerve to get that type of response.
By the way, my mother graduated in among the highest in her class in the top school in her country before she moved to America to work as a nurse. She works as a regular medical nurse not a psychiatric one so even she cannot help you. Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you people would like to scrutinize the two previously posted chapters or me posting the following chapters right now?
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
After having phonologically identified and determined Egyptian and Mbochi, after having showed that Berber phonological system is very different from that of Coptic, after having proved that "Hamito-Semitic", or "Afro-Asiatic" is simply a linguistic myth, a view of mind, we know what will be compared, for what purposes, with what method. We will first deal with morphological correspondences that will allow us to determine the formal and grammatical structure of compared languages.
Old and Middle Egyptian don't have articles. But Late-Egyptian, Demotic, and Coptic do have.
In every Bantu language, and even some non-bantu languages négro-africaines (West-Africa), the substantive show a morpheme that allows him to be classed. This morpheme is prefixed to the substantive and called "class prefix":
"man" ba-ntu "men" mu-ntu
But many class affixes became lexicalized and part of the whole phrase, cf. ndae "house" o-ndae "houses" (where n was originally a class affix as well)
But what is interesting to us is that this characteristic of Bantu languages, which has obviously been developped recently (according to a 1951 article by J.LAROCHETTE) is also found in Coptic. Bantu nominal prefixes, provide the noun a semantic similar to that of Coptic definite article.
code:
t-maaou "the mother" n-maaou "the mothers" p-shEre "the son" n-shEre "the sons" t-sheere "the daughter" n-sheere "the daughters" p-son "the brother" n-son~n-snaou "the sons" t-sOne "the daughter" n-sOne "the daughters"
The definite articles here are t-, p-, n-
One can notice that the distribution of Bantu nominal prefixes and Coptic definite articles is identical.
Thus, there exists between Egyptian (Late Egyptian, Demotic, Coptic) and Bantu ( as well as in other Sudanic languages) in regards to nominal prefixes and Coptic definite articles: Those morphemes denote a similar grammatical distribution.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using Obenga's rationale, it may well even be suggested that Coptic is less related to Old and Middle Egyptian than it is to the Bantu group, simply because of some grammatical evolutions that Egyptic underwent. We've already been through the Berber-Egyptic language comparison, as well as that with other Afrasan sub-phylums, and Obenga was apparently far from establishing the supposed “mythic” nature of their relationship as a family. On the other hand, still no word on actual substance behind the making of Negro-African as a real super-language family, as opposed to a myth...something which he charges Afrasan to be.
In Coptic, plural nouns are usually only distinguished from singular nouns by the article, but there also various traces of plural formation, depending of the ending of the word (-r, -èt, -i, -è, -o).
For the words ending with -o, Coptic seems to have inherited of the Pharaonic way of forming plural nouns:
Many "négro-africaines" languages also display this -u, -w suffix to form plural substantives: Egyptian forms noun plurals via suffixing -w ~ -u (masculine nouns), -wt ~-ut (feminine) to the base
code:
singular plural Kanuri fur "horse" furwa Azer sane "star" sanu fare "donkey" faru Bambara ma, ba "mother" bau Dyula ba "mother" baru morho "man" morhu morhoru Dogon ana "male" anaU nà "mother" nàU Ewe ati "tree" atiwo xO "house" xOwo
The Oromo/Galla substantive plurals (masculine) end with -en, -an, -wan, while the feminine end with le, li, ti, oti, ou, ei, en.
The Giur (Bahr el Ghazal, Southern Sudan) shows a family ressemblance:
code:
singular plural Giur boo "banana" boen dano "hunter" danen coo "bone" cuu jaa "king" jau mi "mother" me thuuk "Mound-building termites" thuu ubuk "forge" ubuu
In Hausa, plural is formed via different ways, such as the change of the final singular -a to -i, ai, and -u.
Hence, while Bantu languages didn't retained the way of forming plural, many West African languages did, exactly like Ancient Egyptian.
All these way of forming plural contrast with Berber's way of creating new morphologies via using broken plurals. In Négro-Africain, plural is mostly created via affixation.
But let's be exhaustive, the noun plural suffix -w tends to shift to -i, -y, under the influence of a preceding -w.
Indeed, in Coptic, a few words shorten their internal long vowel and do suffix -i:
Hence, it is correct from an historical linguistic standpoint to explain the genesis of the -y Wolof plural via the archaic Egyptian formation in -i, y, that coexisted with -w, the latter being used during the whole pharaonic era.
Hence, on can postulate the following plural suffixes, before the pharaonic period:
+u, +i.
This reconstructed prehistoric heritage has been maintained in Egyptian, from Pharaonic to Coptic, but only partially in négro-africain. The Bantu languages would have developped a new system of classes and developped a plural formation more similar to Coptic definite article's semantic. As for Cushitic and some West African languages they would have maintained the most ancient tradition, that goes back to the time of the pyramids, and the common Prehistoric era.
But all these langues négro-africaines have a common history. Or better, history explains the various convergences and divergences between all these languages spoken by the Blacks.
So far, the facts had stayed without any diachronic dimension. Now, a genetic dimension has been attempted, and it takes us beyond the known history of the compared languages, showing their deep historical relationship.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Hausa, plural is formed via different ways, such as the change of the final singular -a to -i, ai, and -u.
Hence, while Bantu languages didn't retained the way of forming plural, many West African languages did, exactly like Ancient Egyptian.
But Hausa is already posited as and Afrisan - Afro-"Asiatic" language, as is Oromo, so this does not per se refute Afrisan - existence.
Indeed, it leads to the question of why -Hausa- is apparently -closer- [?] to mdw ntr than other West African languages, like Bantu, if Afrisan in fact does not exist?
quote:Egyptian forms noun plurals via suffixing -w ~ -u (masculine nouns), -wt ~-ut (feminine) to the base:
But this pattern is also found in Semitic is it not?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say whether this is true for other Semitic languages but it's not found in Hebrew where normal plural forms suffix either -iym (ms.) or -oth (fm.). Hebrew also has a dual form suffix (ayim).
So while it's true for the feminine form it seems due to different reasoning since the masculine is not the feminine minus the t.
Maybe one of our Arabic speakers will tell us more.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Egyptian forms noun plurals via suffixing -w ~ -u (masculine nouns), -wt ~-ut (feminine) to the base:
But this pattern is also found in Semitic is it not?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would be really interesting would be to get Dr. Obenga himself here to respnd and explain his work.
If I can get him here, or better yet on TNV, do you think seeing pages of his book here will make him take protective copyright action?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hence, it is correct from an historical linguistic standpoint to explain the genesis of the -y Wolof plural via the archaic Egyptian formation in -i, y, that coexisted with -w, the latter being used during the whole pharaonic era.
Hence, on can postulate the following plural suffixes, before the pharaonic period:
+u, +i.
This reconstructed prehistoric heritage has been maintained in Egyptian, from Pharaonic to Coptic, but only partially in négro-africain. The Bantu languages would have developped a new system of classes and developped a plural formation more similar to Coptic definite article's semantic. As for Cushitic and some West African languages they would have maintained the most ancient tradition, that goes back to the time of the pyramids, and the common Prehistoric era.
A truer statement was never said. This is most evident in the Mande languages where we find the plural represented by w, y and i. This corresponds to ancient Egyptian plural forms.
In the Mande languages the plural marker's orthography is written as -w, while it is pronounced -u. But in the southern Maninka dialects the plural marker is pronounced /i/.
Bambara
Bambara muso 'woman' musow 'women'
Southern Maninka muso 'woman' musoi 'women'
Cisse (1976) represnts the plural marker as the suffix /-y/, e.g. musoy.
Reference: Bird,Hutchison, Kante, An Ka Bamanankan Kalan: Beginning Bambara (1977), pp.267-268
posted
In this chapter, OBENGA actually claims that AA has been refuted already in the previous chapters. I understand his attempt to prove that Egyptian plural formation is found in Niger-Congo as well as in Chadic & Cushitic.
The problem is that Cushitic plural formation is not remotely as monolithic and external as he claims it to be. Polish linguist Andrzej ZABORSKI wrote a whole book on this issue.
The same could be said of the other features (case markers, lexical items, non concatenative plural formation,etc.) he claimed to be different in Egyptic, Berber & Semitic in support of his négro-égyptien theory, but the features of the two latter being found in Chadic and Cushitic.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:In Hausa, plural is formed via different ways, such as the change of the final singular -a to -i, ai, and -u.
Hence, while Bantu languages didn't retained the way of forming plural, many West African languages did, exactly like Ancient Egyptian.
But Hausa is already posited as and Afrisan - Afro-"Asiatic" language, as is Oromo, so this does not per se refute Afrisan - existence.
Indeed, it leads to the question of why -Hausa- is apparently -closer- [?] to mdw ntr than other West African languages, like Bantu, if Afrisan in fact does not exist?
quote:Egyptian forms noun plurals via suffixing -w ~ -u (masculine nouns), -wt ~-ut (feminine) to the base:
But this pattern is also found in Semitic is it not?
posted
OBENGA clearly stated in person that he doesn't read his e-mails, so I guess the best way to get his opinions about your questions would be to ask him in person and post them then, but again, he only comes to Paris a few times a year, so it will not be an easy and immediate task.
So I think we should stick with the original content of his book for now because, as you probably got it, I doubt he is going to sit on his chair, create an account and start posting on Egyptsearch or TNV.
I don't think he will be offended by people making translation of his work online, but if necessary, I can remove the original pages, that I only post here as an evidence of the honest character of my translation.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What would be really interesting would be to get Dr. Obenga himself here to respnd and explain his work.
If I can get him here, or better yet on TNV, do you think seeing pages of his book here will make him take protective copyright action?
posted
No It's not that I want his stuff to disappear, just wanted to ensure it will stay online if he finds it here where he's not making money off of it.
posted
These guys would leave quicker than Reynolds-Marniche did.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ It will only help sell his book.
Anyway I agree it'd be great if we could get Obenga to contribute, also Ehret, Keita, etc..
Oh, and I agree it would increase book sales if only it were issued in an English version.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
There's more to this place than meets the eye.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wanted to revamp this thread because it seems that Obenga's view isn't clarified complete on some of the points made here. From what I can gather Obenga is saying that the Afroasiatic language family is a hoax because they simply have not based the formation of this family on a reconstructed proto-Afroasiatic. He states that they haven't because they can't based on non matching lexical items for basic concepts.
Although we may find similarities in the "Afro-Asiatic" languages, if the reconstruction of the proto language is the true test to discover if a super family of languages even exists?
And to what do we do with the work of Dr. Modupe Oduyoye in his work Words and Meaning in Yoruba Religion: Linguistic Connections in Yoruba, Ancient Egyptian and Semetic? Is Yoruba now AfroAsiatic? I would also peep his essay in the book The African Origins of the World's Religions co-authored with Dr. Yosef benJochannan.
Again, the issue is has an Proto Afro-Asiatic ever been reconstructed? And is that necessary before we can state that any large language family exist?
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been saying since I began studying Africa's antiquity that the first thing we need to do is totally ignore Greenberg's racist and non-sensical attempt to classify our languages.
To my mind Diop, Obenga and even Wally on this site have proved beyond doubt that Yoruba and Wolof (classified Niger-Kordofian) are closer linguistically to AE than Arabic and Berber, considered Afro-Asiatic. This thread is a great find, I will buy the book.
On a common sense note, we are all aware the AE community was every part birthed, built and maintained along the Nile and across the Sahara, yet we have foolishly accepted Greenberg's assertion that Nilo-Saharan is a seperate phylum from AE! What sense does that make!
African linguistic's ONLY have the right to classify African languages...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the model but what i dont understand is why would u compare Tamazigh and Berber with Beja. Beja is not similar to any language in Sudan,Egypt or Sahara. Beja are fluent in three languages Tebedawi, Tigre, Arabic.
Clyde i was speaking to u once about the language of Meroe and the languages of Nara and how it is related to the Nubian languages. I only know One person who has deciphered Meroitic text a ethiopian scholar who speaks 16 languages.
I speak Beja but i want to understand what language is related to Beja and is Meroitic related to Beja.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: I understand the model but what i dont understand is why would u compare Tamazigh and Berber with Beja. Beja is not similar to any language in Sudan,Egypt or Sahara. Beja are fluent in three languages Tebedawi, Tigre, Arabic.
Clyde i was speaking to u once about the language of Meroe and the languages of Nara and how it is related to the Nubian languages. I only know One person who has deciphered Meroitic text a ethiopian scholar who speaks 16 languages.
I speak Beja but i want to understand what language is related to Beja and is Meroitic related to Beja.
I have never studied Baja but I don't believe it was related to Meroitic. Meroitic was a lingua franca. As a result, you will find that it is related to a number of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages--but not Nubian.
Meroitic is not related to Nubia because the Nob/Nubians never became part of the Meroitic Empire. In fact the Meroites and Nubians were constantly at war once the Nubians entered the area from the east.
You can read more about Nubian and Meroite relations at my blog HerePosts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question still remains, is the Afro-Asiatic language group believed to be a language group based on a reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic? Or is that even necessary to categorize a language family?
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
In conclusion, the results of a strict linguistic analysis are the following : -There are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies, personal and relative pronouns. -About verbal themes, the use of reduplication does not have the same extension in Egyptian and in Semitic. -Also, Egyptian doesn’t have the prefixal conjugation found and the derived compound verbal themes found in Semitic. -The verbal forms sDm.f and sDm.n.f don’t exist in Semitic. -Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic : Egyptian m « as, like » vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ; Egyptian xr « upon, above », vs Akkadian ‘l, Ugaritic ‘l, Syriac ‘al, Hebrew ‘al, Arabic ‘ala, Ethiopian la’la « upon, above ». Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon » -Inherited lexical that can hardly be borrowed from a language to another (see examples above) even in a situation of cultural linguistic dominance are different in Semitic, Egyptian and Berber. Cardinal numbers (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 100, 1000) are also much different in the three language groups.
Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth.
BEEP BEEP SCREECH KISS CUSS
Posts: 49 | From: auto salvage yard | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: My question still remains, is the Afro-Asiatic language group believed to be a language group based on a reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic? Or is that even necessary to categorize a language family?
Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.
This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.
Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:
quote: Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)-- as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation. Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation. Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ... explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because, quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a way of generating random noise.
posted
Ever since I have been studying African languages, I still haven't come across a work that outlines how and when a linguist can assert that one language belongs to an X language family. I think this causes a lot of confusion and debate in the field. All of my text material on the subject give vague associations and depending on who this author is, or who that author is, this language belongs to this group because it has these features, but another will come along and say it belongs to -Y family because it his "these" features.
Without a clear cut criterion for determining language affiliation, these debates can go on forever. So can anyone recommend a text that at least attempts to outline specific criteria for determining language affiliation? I think if we have something to measure against, then we can decide this once and for all.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: Ever since I have been studying African languages, I still haven't come across a work that outlines how and when a linguist can assert that one language belongs to an X language family. I think this causes a lot of confusion and debate in the field. All of my text material on the subject give vague associations and depending on who this author is, or who that author is, this language belongs to this group because it has these features, but another will come along and say it belongs to -Y family because it his "these" features.
Without a clear cut criterion for determining language affiliation, these debates can go on forever. So can anyone recommend a text that at least attempts to outline specific criteria for determining language affiliation? I think if we have something to measure against, then we can decide this once and for all.
Language affiliation is determined by the number of features two or more languages share.
Controversey only exist when linguists decide they don't want to accept a researchers findings.
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: My question still remains, is the Afro-Asiatic language group believed to be a language group based on a reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic? Or is that even necessary to categorize a language family?
No, "Afro-Asiatic" is considered a language family primarily based on observed relationships between existing languages, and in some cases, between existing languages and now-defunct languages which have been deciphered.
"Proto-Afro-Asiatic" on the other hand, is a stimulation of a hypothetical ancestral language, based on phenetic and grammatical characters of existing languages which seem to have similar forms.
Proto-language is essentially a means to confirm already proven language relationship rather than prove said relationship. Its reconstruction is most effectively aided by use of lexicostatistics, as a supplementary tool for the classical comparative analysis.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: My question still remains, is the Afro-Asiatic language group believed to be a language group based on a reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic? Or is that even necessary to categorize a language family?
No, "Afro-Asiatic" is considered a language family primarily based on observed relationships between existing languages, and in some cases, between existing languages and now-defunct languages which have been deciphered.
"Proto-Afro-Asiatic" on the other hand, is a stimulation of a hypothetical ancestral language, based on phenetic and grammatical characters of existing languages which seem to have similar forms.
Proto-language is essentially a means to confirm already proven language relationship rather than prove said relationship. Its reconstruction is most effectively aided by use of lexicostatistics, as a supplementary tool for the classical comparative analysis.
Lexicostatistics is used to date a language.
Classical comparative analysis looks at phonetic, lexical and grammatical relationships between languages.
The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.
The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages. To reconstruct a Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
code:
COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS FROM BASIC VOCABULARY
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or type of vowels. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain places in words having similar meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
code:
I.Consonantal Correspondence
English Tamil Manding
s=/=s
woman asa musa
t=/=t
fire ti ta
l=/=l
house lon lu 'family habitation
d=/=t
law di tili camp dagha otagh forest kaadu tuu
m=/=m
mother amma ma land man ma 'surface,area'
k=/=k
kill kal ki
man uku moko
b=/=p
great pal ba
x=/=s sheep xar 'ram' sara
c=/=s penis col sol-ma
abundant cal,sal s'ya
code:
II. Full Correspondence of terms from Basic Vocabulary
[B] English Dravidian Manding life zi 'abundance clay banko-mannu banko blacksmith inumu numu lie kalla kalon cultivation bey be lord,chief gasa kana,gana to recite sid, sed siti great bal ba to do cey ke rock kal kulu road sila if,what eni ni to cut teg tege exalted ma [/B]
Linguist determine relationships by comparing terms from the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary of a language include lexical items of ‘universal human experience’, that exist among all humans that relate to a speakers culture, e.g., body parts, numerals, personal pronouns, the demonstratives and etc.
[b]
code:
DEMONSTRATIVE BASES
LANGUAGES /PROXIMATE /DISTANT /FINITE Dravidian i a u Mande i a u Fulani o a Serere e a Wolof i a u [/B]
HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS
Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of related languages. We use historical linguistic methods to document the history of a language in both vocabulary and grammar.
The historical linguist looks at language across languages and uses the knowledge he learns to reconstruct the Proto (hypothetical)-language form of a present language traced back to ancient times. Each lexical item traced back to the Proto-language is called a cognate.
This makes it clear that a person's language provides us with evidence of the elements of a group's culture. Using semantic anthropology we can reconstruct Paleo-terms. Paleo-terms can help us make inferences about a culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologist make precise inferences about a groups culture elements.
Phonology is the study of changes, transformations, modifications, etc., of phonemes or speech sounds during the history and development of a language. To denote these changes the linguist considers each phoneme in the light of the part it plays in the structure of speech forms.
There are no clearly established linguistic markers that can measure language change. Languages are not constrained by a preprogrammed reproductive cycle. This means that language can undergo extensive and radical changes over a either a short, or long time span.
This makes it very difficult for historical and comparative linguist to chart linguistic changes based solely or archaeologi -cal data. Thusly, borrowing and convergence are important factors which must be accounted for in any discussion of language change. Linguists therefore, can not examine language change in isolation from the social and historical factors affecting the speaker of the language(s) being examined and discussed.
The socioderme is the transitional unit in language change. This view is especially true, given the fact that language is communal property, i.e. the property of the social or ethnic group which speaks it.
It is the group that identifies aspects of a language and legitimize its proper usage in society. Group membership not only produces variations across gender and ethnic groups, it also helps establish the norms of language spoken by that particular group.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Lexicostatistics is used to date a language.
Lexicostatistics in its primary sense is the quantitative lexical correspondence between languages under comparison, and to determine where closer relationship lies among the multitude of languages, and language families, under consideration.
You are confusing lexicostatistics with glottochronology, as I have said to you multiple times. Glottochronology is the application used to estimate the age of a language phylum.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Proto-language is essentially a means to confirm already proven language relationship rather than prove said relationship. Its reconstruction is most effectively aided by use of lexicostatistics, as a supplementary tool for the classical comparative analysis.
A Proto-language does not confirm a relationship. It can suggest how an ancient language formerly existed but it is a made up language which can never be confirmed unless we find an ancient language that matches the Proto-language.
posted
A proto-language is, as I just noted but flew over your head, reconstructed from a group of languages whose relationship had already been proposed and naturally, would have been demonstrated as such. Proto-Language hence takes the shared attributes of all the existing languages which have aided in its reconstruction. As such, a reconstructed proto-language cannot be used to "prove" something that has already been established. Its purpose is to simply reinforce or validate what has already been demonstrated and presented as a falsifiable proposal.
Nobody said anything about a proto-language being an actual language. You are hearing things.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic