HOWEVER, since you keep going back to it, lets reiterate what I said, instead of what YOU said I said:
^Lie.
The following is a direct quotation of you [scroll your eyes back to the top of the page just preceding this one], and quote:
Coastal North Africans are largely derived from foreign migrants and therefore arent "indigenous". - Doug M
^This is the point in contention - all else is/was just hot air. Giving me credit for your own words, is yet another 'unsubtle' tactic of lying.
quote:Doug M:
Whereupon YOU said:
quote:Mystery Solver:
This last piece seems to suggest that coastal North Africans aren't "indigenous" to Africa. If it isn't suggesting this, can you please elaborate on what it is conveying.
Which is the crux of YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT, which is based on SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY.
Lie - see above.
And yes, I asked that question to avoid jumping to conclusion [before you made the above comment might I add], but make no mistake, the above are your words - *precisely*.
The rest of your post is just the usual irrelevant gossip [to yourself].
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: correct. Although E3a is not as old as E3b , and Magrebian Berber also have L3 and L1 lineages.
The question is, how does this help Hotep2 and Dr. Winters to deny the East African origin of Berber? Our position, which you are unable to refute, is that Berber originates in East Africa.
Hotep2u's off-point ramblings and irrelevant strawmen arguments are rightly dismissed until and unless he can specifically show how they refute our position?
Of course, they don't, therefore he can't, and so the conversation is concluded, pointless babblements of Hotep2 notwithstanding No one reading your spew knows.
Apparently you have been reduced to random babbling and hoping someone will mistake it for a 'thesis'.
Good luck with that...
rasol based off your earlier comments E3b2(M81) is the so called typical 'Berber lineage' not E3b so comparing the age of E3b versus E3a and ignoring the E3b2 haplotype is deceptive on your part, E3a is older than E3b2 which is what you should have been comparing in the first place, seeing that TamaSHEQ speakers carry high frequencies of E3a while TamaZIGHT speakers carry high frequencies of E3b2.
Can you be SPECIFIC and point which group of so called Maghrebian 'Berbers' have L1 and L3 also what frequency do they show of these ancient idigenous Afrikan female lineages? Kabyles? Mozabites? Zenaga?
Deal with the facts, the majority of TamaZIGHT speakers (Northern Maghrebian 'Berbers') DO NOT carry very high frequencies of L1-L3 lineages though the majority of TamaSHEQ speakers (Tuareg)do, proving the TamaSHEQ speakers have the older lineage.
Now let me repeat their is a LANGUAGE known as TamaSHEQ that probably originated in EAST AFRIKA, though the speakers of TamaZIGHT which is a language that is grouped together with TamaSHEQ, has speakers that are NOT all from East Afrika.
The Modern day speakers of TamaZIGHT did NOT all come from East Afrika.
The Modern day population of Coastal North Afrika speak a LANGUAGE that has a connection to East Afrika, this does NOT mean the Modern day population all have East Afrikan ancestry, only SOME inhabitants of Coastal North Afrika have East Afrikan ancestry. Today some speakers of TamaZIGHT are actually the descendants of people who invaded regions in North Afrika.
quote:the majority of TamaZIGHT speakers (Northern Maghrebian 'Berbers') DO NOT carry very high frequencies of L1-L3 lineages
Who claimed otherwise? If no-one, then the above would be strawman argument would it not?
1) Our position, oft stated is: the majority of the maternal ancestors of the Maghrebian must have come from Europe and the Near East *since* the Neolithic - Rando.
2) Likewise the majority of the paternal ancestors of the Maghrebi come from East Africa *during* the Neolithic - Nebel/Arredit.
3) And, Berber originates in Neolithic East Africa - Ehret.
^ If you can dispute our position, then write in your reply which of the 3 facts you are disputing.
Otherwise, continue your incoherent rant.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Modern day speakers of TamaZIGHT did NOT all come from East Afrika.
This is another incoherent statement.
By definition, *modern day* West or Northwest African Berber speakers do not come from East Africa, any more than *modern day* African Americans come from Africa. (??)
We are discussing the East African origin of Berber, which you will neither refute nor evade via incoherence of statement or question.
You are allowed to do two things of possible relevance Hoetep2U:
1) Show us a non African Berber language? 2) Show us a non African predecessor of Berber language?
Anything else from you, is dismissed as distraction.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As another reference, here is more info on the spread of Haplogroup E in Africa and Europe. Note that Arabic speakers also carry large amounts of E-M81, which reflects that many former Berber speakers have adopted Arabic. Underlining that the modern dispersal of Berber speakers is different and lesser due to the spread of Arabic speakers. Another example of this is the near dissappearance of the Zenaga Berber language which was almost wiped out due to Arab conquest in Mauretania.
quote: Do you understand the relationship between E3b and E3b2 (?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do, now do you understand the relationship between E3b and E1?
rasol wrote:
quote: Incorrect. E3b and E3a are analogous as brother lineages, both can be further denoted in terms of sub-lineages.
Now, how does E3b2 relate to E3b?
See the above post and answer the question therein.
E3b2 is said to be descended from E3b which means just that, it does NOT mean original TamaSHEQ speakers carried E3b because based off your own comments posted belew please read.
TamaSHEQ speakers (Taureg) are carriers of E1, I hope you understand that E3b2 carriers could have easily adopted the TamaZIGHT language from TamaSHEQ speakers who carried E3a or E1.
rasol wrote:
quote: Virtually all of them.
You forget that you ran your argument around in a circle where you kept modifying your question,
version # 1: what is the oldest lineage found amongst Berber speakers.
answer: [L1]
version # 2: what lineage is most characteristic of Berber speakers.
answer: [E3b2]
version # 3: what lineage denotes the origin of the Berber speakers.
answer: [E3b]
Now, you can sustain your nonsense indefinitely by cycling versions of the question in order to run away from the answer, which you can't refute.
However, no matter how many versions of the question you make up, the ultimate bottom line answer is the same: Berber originates in East Africa.
I realise that you are desparately trying to obscure this fact, since you are unable to admit it, and unable to refute it.
Where does that leave Hotep2U (?); with and incoherent non-thesis, i'd say.
Version#1) What are the oldest LINEAGES(plural) amongst modern TamaZIGHT and TamaSHEQ speakers? mtDNA L1,L2,L3 , NRY chromosome E1 showing their highest frequency within TamaSHEQ speakers (Tuaregs), rasol refused to remove the 'Berber' umbrella because you know the 'Berber' ruse would immediately fall apart
Version#2 is purely made up by rasol please post my quote that corresponds to Version#2 otherwise remove that straw
Version#3 is wrong also, the question was WHAT ancient LINEAGES(plural)are found amongst modern day TamaZIGHT and TamaSHEQ speakers? mtDNA L1,L2 and L3 NRY chromosome E1 showing their highest frequency amongst TamaSHEQ speakers NOT TamaZIGHT speakers who carry lower frequencies of these ANCIENT Lineages.
Here is a Version#4 that hopefully you can exploit which groups carry the highest frequencies of NON-Afrikan Lineages TamaSHEQ or TamaZIGHT speakers?
rasol the only one trying to obscure the facts are the same ones claiming others are trying to obscure the facts which is rasol because based off your refusal to uncover the 'Berber' umbrella your answer to Version#4 should be BERBERS carry the highest frequency of NON-Afrikan Lineages Now rasol can sustain your nonsense indefinately by not holding on to the 'Berber', Coastal North Afrikan and Maghrebian ruse all you want.
rasol wrote:
quote: Who claimed otherwise? If no-one, then the above would be strawman argument would it not?
1) Our position, oft stated is: the majority of the maternal ancestors of the Maghrebian must have come from Europe and the Near East *since* the Neolithic - Rando.
2) Likewise the majority of the paternal ancestors of the Maghrebi come from East Africa *during* the Neolithic - Nebel/Arredit.
3) And, Berber originates in Neolithic East Africa - Ehret.
^ If you can dispute our position, then write in your reply which of the 3 facts you are disputing.
Otherwise, continue your incoherent rant
The TamaZIGHT speakers are not the TamaSHEQ speakers.
quote: Tuareg (Arabic: طوارق) or Tamasheq/Tamajaq/Tamahaq is a Berber language or family of closely related languages spoken by the Tuareg, in parts of Mali, Niger, Algeria, Libya and Burkina Faso (with a few speakers, the Kinnin, even in Chad
Other Berber languages and Tamashaq are quite mutually comprehensible, and are commonly regarded as a single language (as for instance by Karl Prasse); they are distinguished mainly by a few sound shifts (notably affecting the pronunciation of original z and h.) They are unusually conservative in some respects; they retain two short vowels where northern Berber languages have one or none , and have a much lower proportion of Arabic loanwords than most Berber languages. They are traditionally written in the indigenous Tifinagh alphabet;
TamaZIGHT are obviously NOT the same as TamaSHEQ, because TamaSHEQ speakers carry more idigenous Afrikan lineages and far less NON-Afrikan lineages versus TamaZIGHT speakers.
rasol wrote:
quote: This is another incoherent statement.
By definition, *modern day* West or Northwest African Berber speakers do not come from East Africa, any more than *modern day* African Americans come from Africa. (??)
We are discussing the East African origin of Berber, which you will neither refute nor evade via incoherence of statement or question.
You are allowed to do two things of possible relevance Hoetep2U:
1) Show us a non African Berber language? 2) Show us a non African predecessor of Berber language?
Anything else from you, is dismissed as distraction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern day TamaZIGHT speakers have members who DO NOT have RECENT AFRIKAN ANCESTRY, while AFRIKAN AMERICANS do have RECENT AFRIKAN ANCESTRY, Afrikan American denotes LINEAGE, TamaZIGHT denotes LANGUAGE
No one disputed TamaSHEQ language having a possible East Afrikan Origin though all the speakers of TamaZIGHT do not have recent East Afrikan Ancestry.
quote:Modern day TamaZIGHT speakers have members who DO NOT have RECENT AFRIKAN ANCESTRY, while AFRIKAN AMERICANS do have RECENT AFRIKAN ANCESTRY
lol, lol, lol.
Actually this is more broken logic.
It's the other way around.
Virtually all Tamazight speakers are African, so all have recent African ancestry. [they were born in Africa, their parents, grand parents, great grand parents, great great great grand parents.... were born in Africa, that is recent African ancestry is it not?
As for Tamazight, Tamasheq and all other Berber langauges, they are entirely African, born in Africa, and existing for it's entire history only in Africa. That is African is it not?] If not, please explain? If you agree, please tell us what the point of your 'non'-thesis may be?
Also, just as many Tamazight speakers have European maternal ancestry, many African Americans have European paternal ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The point is stop trying to make white Berbers, the ancient inhabitants of North Africa when they are not the original Black North Africans.
^ Actually your point, and the issue in contention, was that Berber was not of African origin, which is false.
However, it seems that you are withdrawing that claim, and replacing it with the distinct claim that white people do not orignate in Africa, which is true.
This implies that you are at long last acknolwedging the distinction between Berber [a language group], and skin color... and entirely distinct issue.
posted
By the way Hotep2U: Are you trying to infer, without directly saying so, and thus subjecting your comments to falsification, that Tamazight and Tamasheq languages are unrelated , and do not have a common [proto-Berber] origin?
If so, can you please cite a linguist who can demonstrate this premise for us?
If not, well...., what was your point?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The point is stop trying to make white Berbers, the ancient inhabitants of North Africa when they are not the original Black North Africans.
.
I think the issue is that modern berbers have black/African daddy lineages and white/European momma lineages so I would call them mixed/mulattos etc.. I guess they would be both indigenous and not indigenous, but the languages of berbers are all African in orgin.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The point is stop trying to make white Berbers, the ancient inhabitants of North Africa when they are not the original Black North Africans.
Nobody said white Berbers were the original inhabitants of North Africa!! We are only saying that their languages are African and that they themselves carry black ancestry from the original ihabitants, fool!! E3b2 is a lineage common among Berber speakers in general which includes both black speakers as well as white speakers but that this lineage is eldest among the black Berber speakers of the eastern areas!
(I'm sorry for the name-calling, guys but Clyde is just incorrigible beyond hope!)
Clyde, why don't YOU stop trying to make black Indians African migrants!!
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Berber have the very predominently African Y chromosome lineages which Dravidians don't have.
They even have M1 which Dravidians don't have.
Yet you deny the African origin of Berber, and claim and African origin of the Dravidian civilisation of India.
It's like claiming and African origin of the Polar Bear and denying and African origin of the Lion.
Your position is ludicrous.
LMAO at a great analogy to Clyde's way of thinking! Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the tone of Berber being a term used by foriegners for the people identified as Berber today, note the following:
quote: D.R.: First of all, the word Berber is the same we use in English, barbarian. This was a term first developed by the Greeks and adopted by the Romans and it really meant "those who speak gibberish." So it's a very negative term, and in modern north Africa, Berbers typically reject the term Berber, and try to use one of the different Berber words for these confederations, or tribes. One of the key things is that the Berbers don't speak the same language. They have large groups of confederations and clans that exist everywhere from Tunisia all the way through Algeria and Morocco. While there are some things that hold them together, there are also lots of distinguishing characteristics. So in some sense, to use the term Berber is first of all pejorative because we're calling them essentially barbarians, and second of all, it implies that they're one single people, and they're not.
Also note that given this perjorative usage describing the tongues spoken by these Africans, with their origins in Eastern Africa, that many more Africans were called Berbers in times past from Sudan to Senegal. Unfortunately, with the modern distribution of these languages along coastal North Africa, many assume that these are the people being referred to in ancient texts. That is not the case.
Along these lines I have noticed that many of the old photos of Africans in Mauretania look very much like the Fuzzy wuzzies of the Sudan and Egypt, the Bedja. Again, this shows the fact that many of these Berbers who were assumed to be NOrthern "coastal" groups were actually Saharan and Sahelian groups from across a WIDE SWATH of Africa.
posted
^ Good post, those photos offer possibly a realistic appearance similarity with the original proto-Berber.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Those are definitely a good example of the Zenaga and Zenati speaking Berbers of days gone by as well as Sanhaja and Almoravid types as well, as the Almoravids originated in Southern Mauretania.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Virtually all Tamazight speakers are African, so all have recent African ancestry . [they were born in Africa, their parents, grand parents, great grand parents, great great great grand parents.... were born in Africa, that is recent African ancestry is it not ?
As for Tamazight, Tamasheq and all other Berber langauges, they are entirely African , born in Africa, and existing for it's entire history only in Africa. That is African is it not?] If not, please explain? If you agree, please tell us what the point of your 'non'-thesis may be?
Also, just as many Tamazight speakers have European maternal ancestry, many African Americans have European paternal ancestry.
So....., well, what was your point?
Again... ?
rasol you are the only person coming with broken logic, word semantics cannot help you to re-define Afrikans.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
ancestry
SYLLABICATION: an·ces·try PRONUNCIATION: nsstr NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. an·ces·tries 1. Ancestral descent or lineage . 2. Ancestors considered as a group.
rasol the word LINEAGE denotes ones ancestry. Afrikan Americans have RECENT AFRIKAN LINEAGE,some TamaZIGHT speakers do NOT have RECENT AFRIKAN LINEAGE instead they have European Lineage making them indigenous to Europe NOT Afrika, others have recent Arab lineage making them indigenous to the Arabian peninsula and not Afrika. Some Afrikan Americans carry a European Paternal lineage due to rape of Afrikan Women, such acts are crimes against humanity hence we see the reason why Afrikan Americans reject the idea of carrying such a lineage.
A Afrikan born in China is NOT Chinese that person is Afrikan based off Lineage, get it right rasol you are not allowed to re-define a immigrant to Afrika.
TamaZIGHT is NOT entirely Afrikan, fricatives found amongst Kabyle TamaZIGHT speakers are found more often amongst non-Afrikan languages, Arabic loanwords found amongst TamaZIGHT speakers are obviously not Afrikan words, TamaZIGHT carries more foreign NON-Afrikan influences versus TamaSHEQ.
My point is their are similarities and differences amongst the language group in question, one cannot look at similarities and ignore the differences that exist within the language group, the naming of the group 'Berber' is unacceptable because such a umbrella name is disrespectful and promotes confusion towards the original speakers of this language group.
quote:some TamaZIGHT speakers do NOT have RECENT AFRIKAN LINEAGE
You can't even correctly define simple concept such as lineage.
Your lineage is your ancestry.
Your most recent lineage is your mother and father, then their parents, then their parents.
By definition, that constitutes recent lineage.
In order to state that some Berber groups have no recent African lineage, you must show that these Berber groups have no African parents, no African grandparents, no African great grandparents and so on?
Have you done that? No.
Can you do that? No.
The best you can hope for is to show that Berber groups, like other North Africans, have non African admixture, but this isn't the same as the prepostrous claim that Berber have no recent African ancestry.
Hotep2U, it's clear that you began with a broken argument and you are wasting your time with mindless prattle in desparate attempt to rationalise.
We give you one last chance to rescue your babble-thesis, before we flush it down the toilet:
Name a scholar from any relevant discipline, including genetics, linguistics, archeology and anthropology who will support the position that some Berber groups have no recent African ancestry. (?)
^ No babbling please. Just give us the name.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, semantics aside, what Hotep is saying is true. Some Berber speakers do have significant non African ancestry, where the non African genes outnumber the African ones. Some of this occurs because of the modern migrations of Berber speakers into Europe and the continued influx of European and Levantine blood into these populations.
Language therefore does not make a barrier to lineages from outside Africa, because anyone can adopt a language. On the same token, Rasol is correct that Berber speakers do have recent African lineages, albeit some of them more diluted than others. Berber is still an African language spoken by Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol is correct that Berber speakers do have recent African lineages.
Again, all Berber groups have recent African lineages.
Thus Hotep2U's claim was false, semantics aside.
quote:Some Berber speakers do have significant non African ancestry.
^ Of course, as denoted in great detail here, on ES, and therefore not at issue, unless the goal is to introduce a strawman argument to cover for a falsified one.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Virtually all Tamazight speakers are African, so all have recent African ancestry . [they were born in Africa, their parents, grand parents, great grand parents, great great great grand parents.... were born in Africa, that is recent African ancestry is it not
That was your rasol’s definition of what constitutes Afrikan ancestry which was someone descended from any person born on the Afrikan continent which was incorrect, Afrikan people carry a unique lineage which all TamaZIGHT speakers don’t have, notice some members of the Kabyle community make this quite clear, so your ignorant comment was corrected by facts, I utilized the dictionary to show you the definition of ancestry which meant lineage.
rasol wrote:
quote: You can't even correctly define simple concept such as lineage.
Your lineage is your ancestry
Your earlier post did NOT define ancestry as lineage, only after being corrected with the use of the dictionary you retracted your comment to the above comment, this proves you rasol are the one who can’t correctly define a simple concept such as ancestry, which is actually lineage NOT geographical location where one is born.
rasol wrote:
quote: Your most recent lineage is your mother and father, then their parents, then their parents.
By definition, that constitutes recent lineage.
In order to state that some Berber groups have no recent African lineage, you must show that these Berber groups have no African parents, no African grandparents, no African great grandparents and so on?
Have you done that? No.
Can you do that? No.
The best you can hope for is to show that Berber groups, like other North Africans, have non African admixture, but this isn't the same as the prepostrous claim that Berber have no recent African ancestry.
Hotep2U, it's clear that you began with a broken argument and you are wasting your time with mindless prattle in desparate attempt to rationalise.
We give you one last chance to rescue your babble-thesis, before we flush it down the toilet:
Name a scholar from any relevant discipline, including genetics, linguistics, archeology and anthropology who will support the position that some Berber groups have no recent African ancestry. (?)
^ No babbling please. Just give us the name.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
recent SYLLABICATION: re·cent PRONUNCIATION: r s nt ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, belonging to, or occurring at a time immediately before the present . 2. Modern; new. 3. Recent Geology Of, belonging to, or denoting the Holocene Epoch. See table at geologic time.
More like recent Afrikan ancestry means some one whose immediate mother and father have a predominant sub-Saharan Afrikan genetic composition, this defines recent Afrikan Ancestry. The definition of recent found in the dictionary proves that some TamaZIGHT speakers do NOT have recent Afrikan Ancestry because they were not born from a sub-Saharan Afrikan mother and father.
Rasol you began with a ruse ‘Berber’ I showed you that it is a ignorant concept, you stated that TamaZIGHT is entirely Afrikan I showed it wasn’t, some TamaZIGHT speakers have no Afrikan admixture proving them to be non-Afrikans speaking a Afrikan language, you rasol need to recognize that fact not me, you rasol tried to connect language with lineage, and people not me. A language is a language anyone can speak a language, just because someone speaks a language doesn’t mean they are the original speakers or the direct descendants of the original speakers of the said language. A Afrikan language would first be spoken by people who have a genetic composition unique to Afrika, any incomers who happen to speak that language though they lack the genetic composition of a Afrikan (today called sub-Saharan Afrikan) must recognize themselves as some one who ADOPTED the language from the original Afrikan speakers.
quote: Good post, those photos offer possibly a realistic appearance similarity with the original proto-Berber
Your post implies that proto-Berber which is a language group carries an APPEARANCE similarity based off pictures, rasol the only person with a broken logic here is you, ‘Berber’ is a language group, languages don’t carry a Appearance because language is not a physical person or physical group, that’s what you keep confusing because you fail to recognize the ruse, or is it you are being caught in your attempt to promote the ruse?
quote:Your post implies that proto-Berber which is a language group
^ Correct. But wasn't the basis [if any] of your rant precisely that you deny the above?
quote: carries an APPEARANCE similarity based off pictures
The possible similarity in appearance is between modern mauretanian saheliens and the original East African sahelien protoberber.
This is based on the fact that you can't refute and keep trying to run away from, which is that Berber originates in the East African sahel [ie proto Berber] and thence traversed to the west African sahel.
The fact is, many modern mauretanian continue to resemble East africans and so likely, resemble their East African forebearers. [including the earliest 'tehenu' from kemetic iconography].
As for basing this off -pictures-, well yes, pictures are usually helpful for accessing *appearance.*
Your post implies that this is too hard for you to understand? ? ?
quote: rasol the only person with a broken logic here is you.
The sound logic of the East Afridcan origin of Berber is denoted by anthropology, archeology, genetics and linguistics and is clearly denoted as follows....
What is possibly broken is your ability to grasp it.
And given your inability to answer our request for sources for your incoherent rantings, what is *certainly* broken is your ability to refute it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Transferred post to "The Tehenu" thread where I should've put it to begin with.]
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Correct. But wasn't the basis [if any] of your rant precisely that you deny the above
The possible similarity in appearance is between modern mauretanian saheliens and the original East African sahelien protoberber.
This is based on the fact that you can't refute and keep trying to run away from, which is that Berber originates in the East African sahel [ie proto Berber] and thence traversed to the west African sahel.
The fact is, many modern mauretanian continue to resemble East africans and so likely, resemble their East African forebearers. [including the earliest 'tehenu' from kemetic iconography].
As for basing this off -pictures-, well yes, pictures are usually helpful for accessing *appearance.*
Your post implies that this is too hard for you to understand? ? ?
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rasol the only person with a broken logic here is you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sound logic of the East Afridcan origin of Berber is denoted by anthropology, archeology, genetics and linguistics and is clearly denoted as follows....
What is possibly broken is your ability to grasp it.
And given your inability to answer our request for sources for your incoherent rantings, what is *certainly* broken is your ability to refute it
I wish someone would tell rasol that Afrikans originated in EAST AFRIKA so their is no specific look for a so called East Afrikan, you cannot look at one group of language speakers and tell how the original speakers of that language looked specifically, the only thing you can tell is that the original speakers of the Afrikan language were Afrikans that's it.
Lets take a look at what exactly is East Afrika
wikipedia quote:
quote:East Africa or Eastern Africa is the easternmost region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics. In the UN scheme of geographic regions, 19 territories constitute Eastern Africa :
Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda – also members of the East African Community (EAC) Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia – often reckoned as the Horn of Africa Mozambique and Madagascar – sometimes considered part of Southern Africa Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe – often included in Southern Africa, and formerly of the Central African Federation Burundi and Rwanda – sometimes considered part of Central Africa Comoros, Mauritius, and Seychelles – small island nations in the Indian Ocean Réunion and Mayotte – French overseas territories also in the Indian Ocean Geographically, Egypt and Sudan are sometimes included in this region.
East Africa is often used to specifically refer to the area now comprising the countries of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda,[1] and also Rwanda, Burundi, and Somalia.[
rasol with all these countries and all the indigenous Afrikans living in these countries you cannot give a specific look based off language to any group of those Afrikans, language is NOT lineage so called proto-Berber is said to be a language group that originated in Afrika, from this analysis the only thing any one can tell is that the original speakers were indigenous Afrikan people.
I guess rasol has a time travel machine that he didn't tell us about ,
Actually I do. It's called anthropology. It utilises a multi-diciplinary synthesis of molecular genetics, archeology, osteology and linguistics to reveal that Berber originates in East Africa, and that modern Berber continue to carry recent African lineages.
Thus making and ill-educated liar out of you.....
quote:East African origin of Berber is both the issue at hand and the answer to Athena's question.
^ Hotep2, either refute the answer above, or cease your mindless babbling.
^ I wish someone would teach Hotep2U how to answer questions, instead of grinning in embarassment because he can't.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
after seeing these SPECIFIC IMAGES this was your response.
rasol wrote:
quote: ^ Good post, those photos offer possibly a realistic appearance similarity with the original proto-Berber.
rasol used the images to claim that some so called proto-Berber had a similar appearance to those people found in the pictures, rasol TamaZIGHT,TamaSHEQ improperly grouped under a label called 'Berber' is a LANGUAGE not a group of people, rasol you need to get it in your head that TamaSHEQ originated in East Afrika. The language group originated in East Afrika people are NOT language groups.
rasol wrote:
quote:The possible similarity in appearance is between modern mauretanian saheliens and the original East African sahelien protoberber.
This is based on the fact that you can't refute and keep trying to run away from, which is that Berber originates in the East African sahel [ie proto Berber] and thence traversed to the west African sahel.
The fact is, many modern mauretanian continue to resemble East africans and so likely, resemble their East African forebearers . [including the earliest 'tehenu' from kemetic iconography].
As for basing this off -pictures-, well yes, pictures are usually helpful for accessing *appearance.*
Your post implies that this is too hard for you to understand? ? ?
These comments in bold make it quite clear that rasol is equating the language group called 'Berber' with a appearance that can be found in Mauritania, and some type of 'Original East Afrikans' what ever that means. rasol is also making assumptions that the appearance seen in Mauritania is a modern day representation of the population that originally spoke a TamaSHEQ language group called 'Berber' today.
rasol is also claiming that proto-Berber which should be recognized as a language group can be traced via anthropology,genetics, and archaelogy which proves rasol is equating the language group labeled as 'Berber' with a physical group of human beings. rasol only linguistics can be used to trace the origin of the so called proto-Berber, because we are dealing with a language NOT a group of people.
rasol wrote:
quote: Actually I do. It's called anthropology. It utilises a multi-diciplinary synthesis of molecular genetics, archeology, osteology and linguistics to reveal that Berber originates in East Africa, and that modern Berber continue to carry recent African lineages.
Thus making and ill-educated liar out of you.....
rasol you are confused TamaZIGHT,TamaSHEQ is a language not a phenotype that came from East Afrika which can be found today in Mauritania, you rasol are either confused or deceptive. The facts are TamaSHEQ,TamaZIGHT (grouped under 'Berber') are a language group that originated in East Afrika by a group of indigenous Afrikan people who could have any appearance that can be found amongst any group of indigenous Afrikan people. Some modern day TamaZIGHT speakers carry recent Afrikan Ancestry and some DO NOT, rasol failed to state that some TamaZIGHT speakers DO NOT carry recent Afrikan Ancestry, which makes rasol a ill-educated liar.
quote:Hotep2U wrote: The definition of recent found in the dictionary proves that some TamaZIGHT speakers do NOT have recent Afrikan Ancestry because they were not born from a sub-Saharan Afrikan mother and father.
So you have to born "from a sub-saharan Afrikan mother and father" to have recent african lineage? You know that the landmass north of sahara is still considered part of Africa, right?
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hotep2U's babblement gets worse and worse, and now offically stinks of desparation, and he knows it.
His latest rants....
quote:Yes you did give a specific look, that you claimed can be found in Mauretania Sahelians
No I didn't. Your reading comprehension is little short of a complete disaster.
Moreover that's not what you orignally claimed [i said] either.
Your originally claimed I assigned a singular look to *East Africans* which I also did not do.
Your problem is you can't read, which is why you can't understand anything, and keep making a fool of yourself over and over again.
How do you hope to understand genetics or linguistics when you can't comprehend a single sentence? -> " Good post, DougM, those photos offer possibly a realistic appearance similarity with the original proto-Berber."
Meanwhile you answer no questions and fail to properly address *anything* that was *actually said.*
quote:TamaZIGHT,TamaSHEQ is a language not a phenotype that came from East Afrika
Our position is precisely that Berber is a language group that originates in East Africa. No one assigned Tamazight comma Tamasheg a phenotype, so your comment makes no sense, other than further denoting your inability to read, and your desparate need to save face via some strawman or another. The results are Hotep2U's continued incoherence.
quote:Some modern day TamaZIGHT speakers carry recent Afrikan Ancestry, so do not
This is weasel worded backtracking off of your ignorant claim that Tamazight speaking groups "carried no recent African ancestry", and even granted your backtracking, it's still a false statement.
Here's another question for Hotep2U to run away from....
* Name a single Berber group that does not carry any African lineages, defined as E,A,B,L,M1, or U6?
^ Look forward to your next reply filled with several paragraphs of incoherent non answers. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well. the fact of the matter is the name for the continent, as in use by Europeans throughout time and now even by the continentals themselves, rests on the north coastals.
Whether Libya or Africa, the name was taken from the Mediterranean part of the continent, more particularly from specific ethnies of that region -- Libu, Aoughrigha.
So saying North Africans aren't African is ignorance.
They were the known Africans before anyone south of the Sahara and west of the Rift were known as Africans.
So, if there's any identity theft going on ...
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: You know that the landmass north of sahara is still considered part of Africa, right?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you have to born "from a sub-saharan Afrikan mother and father" to have recent african lineage? You know that the landmass north of sahara is still considered part of Africa, right?
Afrika is a continent and no desert can be used to separate a continent.
Yonis I used the word sub-Saharan Afrikan because that seems to be the word used to describe indigenous Afrikan people today, many geneticist use this word sub-Saharan Afrikan to describe indigenous Afrikan people, again any indigenous Afrikan can easily see this word sub-Saharan Afrikan as a disrespectful terminology especially with the use of the prefix sub-
quote:sub– pref. Below; under; beneath: subsoil.
Subordinate; secondary: subplot. Subdivision: subregion. Less than completely or normally; nearly; almost: subhuman . [Middle English, from Latin, from sub, under.]
The disrespect of indigenous Afrikan people is a ongoing process as you can see for your self, I specifically try to use the word indigenous Afrikan whenever I can, but due to rasol's deceptive behavior I had to resort to the use of the word sub-Saharan Afrikan to specify that I was dealing with indigenous Afrikans and not Africanized European and Arab immigrants who live in some areas of North Afrika.
Yonis I am well aware that North Afrika is just the Northern regions of the Afrikan continent though many geneticist don't seem to agree with that, so they are quick to group indigenous Afrikans under a umbrella called sub-Saharan Afrikans.
quote:The disrespect of indigenous Afrikan people is a ongoing process.
Babbling in and attempt to distract from "having no answers", and ongoing process for Hotep2U - and a futile one as well.
quote:they are quick to group indigenous Afrikans under a umbrella called sub-Saharan Afrikans.
"They" = generalisation, projection and distraction.
As Yonis, AlTakruri and everyone else observed, the one doing the dividing in this conversation is you. You failed to justify it, and now you are trying to blame other people for it.
You should really do something smart at this point....and close your mouth. lol.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our position is precisely that Berber is a language group that originates in East Africa. No one assigned Tamazight comma Tamasheg a phenotype, so your comment makes no sense, other than further denoting your inability to read, and your desparate need to save face via some strawman or another. The results are Hotep2U's continued incoherence
I want you to read the comments in bold, next look at the question you asked
rasol wrote:
quote: Here's another question for Hotep2U to run away from....
* Name a single Berber group that does not carry any African lineages, defined as E,A,B,L,M1, or U6 ?
^ Look forward to your next reply filled with several paragraphs of incoherent non answers.
First rasol states that 'Berber' is a language group then rasol ask to name the lineages for the Berber group. Someone please tell rasol languages DO NOT have lineage
rasol I suggest you read the quote below because your ruse fell apart along time ago.
D.R.: First of all, the word Berber is the same we use in English, barbarian . This was a term first developed by the Greeks and adopted by the Romans and it really meant "those who speak gibberish." So it's a very negative term, and in modern north Africa, Berbers typically reject the term Berber, and try to use one of the different Berber words for these confederations, or tribes . One of the key things is that the Berbers don't speak the same language. They have large groups of confederations and clans that exist everywhere from Tunisia all the way through Algeria and Morocco. While there are some things that hold them together, there are also lots of distinguishing characteristics. So in some sense, to use the term Berber is first of all pejorative because we're calling them essentially barbarians, and second of all, it implies that they're one single people, and they're not.
quote:Hotep2u pleads: I want you to read the comments in bold
No one cares about your bold-text babbling Hotep2u.
We want you to answer the question....
quote:Name a single Berber group that does not carry any African lineages, defined as E,A,B,L,M1, or U6 ?
Since you have no answer, you'd best just suck it up, and face the facts
All Berber speakers have African lineages:
^ case closed.
Actually all Berber speakers do not have African lineages. Meaning, I am sure that there are INDIVIDUAL Berber speakers with NO African lineages at all. What you mean is that AS A GROUP all Berber speaking populations have African lineages.
HOWEVER, with that said, we must not forget the history of these same populations as the ORIGINAL Berbers speakers came from the Sahara and were heavily displaced by waves of Arab invaders. Meaning, that the modern Kabylie, Rif, Chleuh, Tuareg and other Berber speaking clans did not EXIST 600 years ago. The original clans of Berbers were the Lamtuna, Masumuda, Zenaga, Sanhaja, Magrawa, Miknasa, Kutama and others. All of these groups have been displaced due to political, religious and ethnic struggles over the last 1000 years. Their descendents are the Berber speakers we know today: the Rif, the Kabylie, the Tuareg, the Chleuh and so on. However, this is after years of interaction with various outside groups, including Europeans and Levantine populations.
Therefore, even though they have African lineages, many of these modern Berber groups also have Non African lineages.
At the same token, Hotep, lineage and languages are not skin color and even if coastal Berbers largely have lighter skin, it doesnt change the facts of their genetics.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you mean is that AS A GROUP all Berber speaking populations have African lineages.
Obviously, since the question pertain to groups, and differentiates by language.
A valid response either names the group for which this is not true, or implicitly admits that is IS TRUE.
Any apologia or fanfare that does not name the group, doesn't ansewr the question, and is irrelevant noisemaking.
quote:We must not forget the history of these same populations as the ORIGINAL Berbers speakers came from the Sahara and were heavily displaced by waves of Arab invaders.
False statement about Berber ancestry - which is why it is based on assumption and then offers no proof.
For the umpteenth time, and for everyone who doesn't get, or like Hotep2U, doesn't like it, here is what CAN BE PROVEN about Berber speaker based upon genetics:
1) All Berber groups have primarily African male lineages. ALL OF THEM. They do not have primarily Arab lineages, which makes it clear that they were not *heavily* displaced by Arabs.
2) Berber have highly highly variable female lineages, some of which are primarly African, and others of which are primarily Eurasian.
3) The primary Eurasian female lineage is H1. H1 is European, it is not e Arab.
Now if you disagree - present genetics, and name the Arab group that is denoted as being 'heavily' Arab?
quote:Therefore, even though they have African lineages, many of these modern Berber groups also have Non African lineages.
This is a true statement which applies to Berber, Nilo saharan, Cushitic, and Niger Congo speakers. Its also not a point of contention.
The point at issue is the one you noted, and Hotep2U denied: which is that all Berber groups have African lineages.
The rest of your reply attempts to generate a faux rebutal by discussing that which was never at issue.
I've noticed you do that with your 'arguments' with Supercar as well.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to make things simpler (for Hotep). We know that some southern Europeans despite their 'white' appearances and speaking European languages, carry lineages from Africa. Well what is so hard to believe that 'white' looking peoples in North Africa who have obvious European ancestry, but speak African languages (Berber) could also carry African lineages??.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Mystery Solver for the genetics input. Note everyone that Mystery Solver's data is in agreement with the example I presented earlier since the only thing it implies is that either the "Wargli, Mzabi, Twati", the "Tripoli and Jerbi" or the "Shiwa and Jerbi" group were the firsts to diverge from the group who initially left the original Proto-Berber group;
alTakruri: From the (very brief )look I took at the MITCHELL corpus' basic lexicon, it seemed to me that the eventuality of Kabyle being closer to Tuareg than to other Berber lects is actually very conceivable from a linguistic standpoint.
I'll try to do a glottochronology "work" on MICHELL's corpus within a week and then I'll try to compare it with apparent phonological innovations and with published works on the issue of Berber internal divergence from CHAKER & others (that I haven't read yet).
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
not E3b so comparing the age of E3b versus E3a and ignoring the E3b2 haplotype is deceptive on your part,![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
, and do not have a common [proto-Berber] origin?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
rasol the only person with a broken logic here is you, ‘Berber’ is a language group, languages don’t carry a Appearance because language is not a physical person or physical group, that’s what you keep confusing because you fail to recognize the ruse, or is it you are being caught in your attempt to promote the ruse?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But wasn't the basis [if any] of your rant precisely that you deny the above?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic