EgyptSearch Forums: comparing Egyptian to other Afroasiatic languages

This is topic comparing Egyptian to other Afroasiatic languages in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005178

Posted by salah (Member # 11739) on :

what i am talking about is simularites between Egyptian and other Afroasiatc languages/groups, whether be it chadic,berber,cushtic,semetic

for example this is somali:
Ra/Ra (The sun)

Neter/Neder (divine being)

Hipo/Hibo (the sound b doe not exist in Hamitic languages - gift)

Heru/Huur (a stork)

Tuf/Tuf (spit)

Habi (the Nile)/Wabi ( a river)

Ar/Ar ( a lion)

cb/kab (shoe)

brq/biriq (lightning)

ayah/dayah (moon)

dab/dab (fire)

anka/aniga (I)

su, asu/usi (he)

Ka/Ka,Kaah (spirit)

medu/muud (liquid)

Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :

What is a "Hamitic language"?

quote:
Originally posted by salah:

Hipo/Hibo (the sound b doe not exist in Hamitic languages - gift)

Posted by salah (Member # 11739) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
What is a "Hamitic language"?

quote:
Originally posted by salah:

Hipo/Hibo (the sound b doe not exist in Hamitic languages - gift)

lol, the simularities between Egyptian & somali was written on this forum some time ago, so I just copied and pasted it [Big Grin]

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :

From that list, cognates w/Amharic are:

tefa (he spit)/tifta (spit)

Iné (I)

Awre, meaning "wild animal" (from Ge`ez Arwe, a general proto-AA term for a beast, cf. Hebrew "aryeh" for lion)

issu/irsu (he)

mebreq (lightning, from Ge'ez "berq")

Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
From that list, cognates w/Amharic are:

tefa (he spit)/tifta (spit)

Iné (I)

Awre, meaning "wild animal" (from Ge`ez Arwe, a general proto-AA term for a beast, cf. Hebrew "aryeh" for lion)

issu/irsu (he)

mebreq (lightning, from Ge'ez "berq")

...ah, one day we shall all graduate, but only after we have finally learned of this neo-colonialized balkanization of African languages...

tefa (he spit)/tifta (spit) is also tefnit (spit) in Wolof

issu/irsu (he) is also es in Wolof...
just see:

http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/egypt_lang.html

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ [Embarrassed]

Nope, more like one day YOU will realize how these modern classifications of languages are valid and were NOT created as an attempt to divide Africans up, no more than the recognition of different Asian languages or different European languages were meant to divide those peoples up respectively.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

Salah, there are other features of relation between languages other than phonetics (word sounds), phonology (sound systems), morphology (word structure) and vocabulary (word meanings). One must also keep in mind syntax (sentence structure), semantics (specificity of meaning), grammar etc.

These are what make up the components of language. The more a language has all of the above in common with another language, the more related it is. Which is why languages that have similar phonetics and even similar meanings does not necessarily mean they are part of the same phylum. I don't know how many threads were started on Afroasiatic on this forum, but I know there was plenty (too bad no search engine).
I don't know too much about Cushitic languages, but I know Berber languages are very closely related to Semitic and Egyptian when it comes to grammar, including Beja.

Yonis also started an interesting discussion here, on tonal vs. non-tonal languages in Afroasiatic. Tonal languages are languages that use pitches (like in singing) in speech. More than one word can have the same pronunciation but mean different things depending on how you say the pitch.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

Can Yom or anyone else show examples of other similarities between Afroasiatic languages such as grammar??

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

The Afro-Asiatic language family is a joke. It does not exist.

Obenga provides an excellent example of the nonexistence of Afro-Asiatic in his article: Le "chamito-semitique n'existe pas",Revue d'Egytologie et des civilisations Africaines, 1:51-58. Here he compares the words for sun

Semitique

Akkadien samas

Ugaritique sps

Hebreu semes

Arabe sams

Egyptian

Ancient ra

Demotique ra

Copte ra

Couchitique/Cushite

sidamo arriso

saho-afar ayro

Berber

siwa tfokt

ghadames tufet, thafath

nefusa tufut

mzab tfuit

Tchadique

Hausa ra-na, rana

langues du Bahr el-Ghazal

ndogo ri

sere ri

tagbu ri and li

bviri li

mondu ra

The Rest of Negro-African

Rendile (Kenya) orr'ah

Songhay (Niger) ra

Vai (Liberia) ra

Susu (Guinee) ra

Gbin ra

Samo re

Numu re

Ligbi re

Here Obenga makes vividly clear that where as the Egyptian and Black-African terms for 'sun' agree, the Semitic and Berber terms show no relationship. This supports the Obenga and Diop theory that Egyptian and Black African languages are genetically related, while
the Semitic and Berber languages show that the so-called Afro-Asiatic family of languages does not exist.

.
.

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :

^^^ So what's EthioSemitic since it's word is Tsehay? Does it make it unrelated to all of those languages? You can't base your classification on one word.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Can Yom or anyone else show examples of other similarities between Afroasiatic languages such as grammar??

Well, the general form for verbs is "a" + Root for "I," "t" + root for you (masculine, Feminine it's t- + Root + -i or something like that), y + root for third person s.m., t + root for 3rd p.s.f., "n-" + root for first person plural ("we"). I'm not sure what the plural forms of you and s/he are (I have an idea, but I'm not as certain). "-u" as a suffix is a generally common idea for plural conjugation, though, IIRC. Past tense verbs in proto-Semitic are -ku (I), -ta (you m.), -ti (you f.), and if I rememeber correctly, they're ku, ka, and ki for proto-Afro-Asiatic (as in Ge'ez).

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
^^^ So what's EthioSemitic since it's word is Tsehay? Does it make it unrelated to all of those languages? You can't base your classification on one word.

But you can *use* one word to suggest or deny any relationship you want in between any langauges you choose.

That's why this 'selective word comparison' method - which has such great 'intuitive' appeal to the laymen, is not scientifically valid.

Look at a map of the logical geographic expanse of Afro-Asiatic.

Now superimpose upon upon this and imaginery map of Winters - Nigerian - Dravidian - Japanese language family.

As for Obenga - he was primarily and rightly concerned with debunking the Hamito-Semito mythology which at it's height attempted to reduce mdw ntr and hence Kemet to a sub-division of of the semitic world.

He wanted to show that mdw ntr was related to other African languages and *not* to semitic and berber - and therefore to the languages of non-Blacks.

Given that linguists now root the cushitic division at the base of Afrisan language with the Semitic and Berber divisions being the youngest - this argument is no longer necessary and in fact it *backfires*.

Here is why:

The orignal intent is to show that mdw ntr is African.

But this is today nearly universally acknolwedged.

So by arguing that Berber and Semitic are *unrelated* to other Afrisan languages, you simply end up moving African languages including Ethio-semitic and *all* of the Berber languages out of Africa.

When you do this you re-enable Eurocentric back-migration mythology all over again.

It's critically important to keep up with current scholarship.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
^^^ So what's EthioSemitic since it's word is Tsehay? Does it make it unrelated to all of those languages? You can't base your classification on one word.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Can Yom or anyone else show examples of other similarities between Afroasiatic languages such as grammar??
Well, the general form for verbs is "a" + Root for "I," "t" + root for you (masculine, Feminine it's t- + Root + -i or something like that), y + root for third person s.m., t + root for 3rd p.s.f., "n-" + root for first person plural ("we"). I'm not sure what the plural forms of you and s/he are (I have an idea, but I'm not as certain). "-u" as a suffix is a generally common idea for plural conjugation, though, IIRC. Past tense verbs in proto-Semitic are -ku (I), -ta (you m.), -ti (you f.), and if I rememeber correctly, they're ku, ka, and ki for proto-Afro-Asiatic (as in Ge'ez).

This is not proof. Provide examples from specific so-called Afro-Asiatic languages.

.

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :

I don't have time for that now, that was just a quick run through off the top of my head. I can give you more info in a few days when I have more time, though.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
^^^ So what's EthioSemitic since it's word is Tsehay? Does it make it unrelated to all of those languages? You can't base your classification on one word.
But you can *use* one word to suggest or deny any relationship you want in between any langauges you choose.

That's why this 'selective word comparison' method - which has such great 'intuitive' appeal to the laymen, is not scientifically valid.

Look at a map of the logical geographic expanse of Afro-Asiatic.

Now superimpose upon upon this and imaginery map of Winters - Nigerian - Dravidian - Japanese language family.

As for Obenga - he was primarily and rightly concerned with debunking the Hamito-Semito mythology which at it's height attempted to reduce mdw ntr and hence Kemet to a sub-division of of the semitic world.

He wanted to show that mdw ntr was related to other African languages and *not* to semitic and berber - and therefore to the languages of non-Blacks.

Given that linguists now root the cushitic division at the base of Afrisan language with the Semitic and Berber divisions being the youngest - this argument is no longer necessary and in fact it *backfires*.

Here is why:

The orignal intent is to show that mdw ntr is African.

But this is today nearly universally acknolwedged.

So by arguing that Berber and Semitic are *unrelated* to other Afrisan languages, you simply end up moving African languages including Ethio-semitic and *all* of the Berber languages out of Africa.

When you do this you re-enable Eurocentric back-migration mythology all over again.

It's critically important to keep up with current scholarship.

Obenga has not changed his opinion about Afro-Asiatic.

.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ If so, then he is arguably failing to keep up with current scholarship.

Can you reference me to *recent* writings from Obenga that elaborate upon his rationale?

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by salah:
what i am talking about is simularites between Egyptian and other Afroasiatc languages/groups, whether be it chadic,berber,cushtic,semetic

for example this is somali:
Ra/Ra (The sun)

Neter/Neder (divine being)

Hipo/Hibo (the sound b doe not exist in Hamitic languages - gift)

Heru/Huur (a stork)

Tuf/Tuf (spit)

Habi (the Nile)/Wabi ( a river)

Ar/Ar ( a lion)

cb/kab (shoe)

brq/biriq (lightning)

ayah/dayah (moon)

dab/dab (fire)

anka/aniga (I)

su, asu/usi (he)

Ka/Ka,Kaah (spirit)

medu/muud (liquid)

You act as though the Afro-Asiatic language family has a firm foundation. It does not.

For example, Ehret's work has been criticized and many of his reconstructions of Proto-Afro- Asiatic are recognized as none existent. See:

https://www.openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/2882/1/344_106.pdf

.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^ If so, then he is arguably failing to keep up with current scholarship.

Can you reference me to *recent* writings from Obenga that elaborate upon his rationale?

Dr. Theophile Obenga

Egypt: Africa's Oldest Daughter

Dr. Theophile Obenga
San Francisco State University, CA

Full text: Not available
Last modified: January 28, 2006

Abstract
The question of the ancient Egypt connection with the rest of Black Africa was opened to an intensive discussion involving opposing points of view in 1974 during an international symposium organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) held in Cairo and Aswan. Present were more than 20 of the best Egyptologists in the world. all the outstanding scholars and specialist at the Cairo symposium, although they tok opposing sides about other items, came, in sipte of that, to agreement regarding the following significant points.

First, Egyptian language as revealed in hyeroglyphic, hieratic, and demonic writings, and Coptic, that is, the old Egyptian language in its latest developments, as written in the Greek-Coptic script, and modern African languages, as spoken nowadays in Black Africa, constitute the same linguistic community broken into several parts. Comparative grammar and the method of internal reconstruction allow scholar to reconstruct certain features of the language spoken by the original, unseparated community, on the basis of corresponding features of the descent languages. The comparative method in historical linguistics is still a valid method for defining change and determining earlier forms of two or more related languages to prove their precise relationship. Technically speaking, no scholar, using the method of internal reconstruction, has proven objectively that the Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber languages are descended from a common ancestor. The so-called "Afro-Asiatic family," or "chamito-Semitic family," which has gained wide circulation, has no scientific foundation at all. There is no proof of an "Afro-Asiatic historical grammar." One may recall here what Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) called "the prejudice of the prestige of the multitude," that is to say, the supposition that what everyone says must be true. In the human sciences "scientifc" circles often make claims not based on any objectively verifiable grounds but rather just on this kind of prejudice.

Second, ancient Egypt was a flourishing ancient kingdom of Northeast Africa, located in the Nile Valley, nowise in "Asia Minor" or in the "Near East." the Egyptian civilization of the Pharaonic period (3400-343 BC) was intrinsically, that is, in its essential nature, an African civilization, on account of its spirit, character, behavior, culture, thought, and deep feeling.

As we know, Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), who was not a historian, but a great philosopher, stated in his lectures delivered in the winter of 1830-1 on the philosophical history of the world: "Africa is no historical part of the world: it has no movement of development to exhibit...Egypt...does not belong to the African spirit" (1956:99; emphasis mine). This view of the Hegelian philosophy of history has become almost a common opinion and an academic paradigm in Western historiography. A great culture of civilization cannot be produced by African (Black) people. Moreover, African people have never made any kind of contribution to world history. Even some brillant African minds still accept as true Hegel's incongruous statement. In modern time the primary document concerning the "question" of the ancient Egyptian connection with the rest of Black Africa was, untile the cairo symposium, Hegel's Philosophy of History. Thus, it took one century and 44 years, from Hegel (1830) to the Cairo symposium (1974), to change the paradigm intalled by the German philosopher.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Thanks.

Posted by Quetzalcoatl (Member # 12742) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[

For example, Ehret's work has been criticized and many of his reconstructions of Proto-Afro- Asiatic are recognized as none existent. See:

https://www.openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/2882/1/344_106.pdf

. [/QB]

First, Ehret is not the only or first linguist to propose the existence of Afroasiatic, and secondly it is misleading to imply that the reference cited condemns all of Ehret's proposals. here is the concluding paragraph of the cited book review>

quote:
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the book under review is a major contribution to the reconstruction of Proto-Afro-Asiatic because it brings together a large amount of data and presents a coherent view of how the protolanguage
disintegrated and developed into the separate branches of the family. If the details of Ehret's reconstructions remain open to serious doubts, this is because they reflect the state of the art. Most forms adduced in the Standard etymological dictionary of the Indo-European language family (Pokorny 1959) probably do not go back to the proto-language. Against this background, it would be unrealistic to expect that most of Ehret's reconstructions are correct. They probably are not. But this does not diminish the value of his work, which represents the first comprehensive collection and analysis of Proto-Afro-Asiatic
vocabulary. Nobody will henceforth be able to write about the subject without taking Ehret's views into consideration.

.

On the existence of Afroasiatic as a language phylum here are quotes from the standard work:

Richard J. Hayward. 2000. “Afroasiatic” in B. Heine and D. J. Nurse, eds. [italics]African Languages. An Introduction[/italics]. pp. 74-98 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

quote:
p. 74. “ Afroasiatic (AA) is probably the least controversial of the four phyla of languages proposed by Greenberg for the African continent. Long prior to Greenberg (1950a) a core of what we now call AA had been recognized, and subsequent to that publication there has been no serious suggestion that the AA concept should be called into question. There has not been universal agreement about the internal structure of the phylum nor complete unanimity about the membership of every language group proposed, but regarding the over all AA hypothesis there has been wide satisfaction.

and from two well-regarded African language linguists

Heine, B. and and D. J. Nurse. 2000. “Introduction” pp. 1-10 in B. Heine and D. J. Nurse, eds. [italics]African Languages. An Introduction[/italics]. pp. 74-98 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

quote:
p. 5. “Of the four, Afroasiatic is the most widely recognized and best analysed, and has the longest history of scholarship carried out by the largest number of scholars.”

Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :

quote:
Clyde winters:
The Rest of Negro-African

Rendile (Kenya) orr'ah

Rendille is not a niger-congo language it's a cushitic language closely related to Somali than Somali is to afaan-oromo.

Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :

Then how would one explain the similarities that Dr. Winters and Obenga point out? Is it not possible to trace Afrasan to an even older African language from which it and other phyla split?

Also, different contributors to the forun keep mentioning older African cultural developments that culminated in Kemet but existed long before. Can anyone say more about this? Has any research been done on it, and if so, could you point out the sources?

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Rather than genetic families, Dalby proposes
region wide affinity of speech overlaid by
fragmentation of unaffiliated speakers.

code:

0.  AFRICA / AFRIQUE géosecteur      1.  AFRO-ASIAN / AFRO-ASIATIQUE phylosecteur 
      00.  MANDIC phylozone                10.  TAMAZIC phylozone 
      01.  SONGHAIC phylozone              11.  EGYPTIC phylozone 
      02.  SAHARIC phylozone               12.  SEMITIC phylozone 
      03.  SUDANIC phylozone               13.  BEJIC phylozone 
      04.  NILOTIC phylozone               14.  CUSHITIC phylozone 
      05.  EAST SAHEL géozone              15.  EYASIC phylozone 
      06.  KORDOFANIC phylozone            16.  OMOTIC phylozone 
      07.  RIFT VALLEY géozone             17.  CHARIC phylozone 
      08.  KHOISANIC phylozone             18.  MANDARIC phylozone 
      09.  KALAHARI géozone                19.  BAUCHIC phylozone

Posted by salah (Member # 11739) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
From that list, cognates w/Amharic are:

tefa (he spit)/tifta (spit)

Iné (I)

Awre, meaning "wild animal" (from Ge`ez Arwe, a general proto-AA term for a beast, cf. Hebrew "aryeh" for lion)

issu/irsu (he)

mebreq (lightning, from Ge'ez "berq")

I think that
they all have a common origin (those 4 words that are in both egyptian,amharic and somali)

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :

Rather than genetic families, Dalby proposes
region wide affinity of speech overlaid by
fragmentation of unaffiliated speakers.

Geosectors simply refer to a continent.

Phylosectors refer to affinity.

Phylozones correspond to wider or narrower affinities.

Geozones correspond to convenient geographical groupings that may
* sometimes share a geo-typological relationship
* simply be isolated languages
* groupings of diverse languages spoken in the same geographic area

code:

0.  AFRICA / AFRIQUE géosecteur      1.  AFRO-ASIAN / AFRO-ASIATIQUE phylosecteur 
      00.  MANDIC phylozone                10.  TAMAZIC phylozone 
      01.  SONGHAIC phylozone              11.  EGYPTIC phylozone 
      02.  SAHARIC phylozone               12.  SEMITIC phylozone 
      03.  SUDANIC phylozone               13.  BEJIC phylozone 
      04.  NILOTIC phylozone               14.  CUSHITIC phylozone 
      05.  EAST SAHEL géozone              15.  EYASIC phylozone 
      06.  KORDOFANIC phylozone            16.  OMOTIC phylozone 
      07.  RIFT VALLEY géozone             17.  CHARIC phylozone 
      08.  KHOISANIC phylozone             18.  MANDARIC phylozone 
      09.  KALAHARI géozone                19.  BAUCHIC phylozone 

9.  TRANSAFRICAN / TRANSAFRICAIN phylosecteur 
      90.  ATLANTIC phylozone 
      91.  VOLTAIC phylozone 
      92.  ADAMAWIC phylozone 
      93.  UBANGIC phylozone 
      94.  MELIC phylozone 
      95.  KRUIC phylozone 
      96.  AFRAMIC phylozone 
      97.  DELTIC phylozone 
      98.  BENUIC phylozone 
      99.  BANTUIC phylozone

From Table A : Geolinguistic framework of referential sectors & zones
©David Dalby, Observatoire linguistique 1993-2007
GEOSECTORS comprising geozones & independent phylozones; plus
PHYLOSECTORS comprising phylozones (interrelated witin each phylosector)

Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :

OBENGA grouped "Cushitic" (he included Omotic into it), Chadic, Niger Congo, Nilo Saharan & Egyptian into his "Négro-Egyptien" super-phylum, ("Négro" meaning here "Black" in reference to modern "Black African languages" with no regard to the "true negro" concept).

quote:
Originally posted by Yonis:

quote:
Clyde winters:
The Rest of Negro-African

Rendile (Kenya) orr'ah
Rendille is not a niger-congo language it's a cushitic language closely related to Somali than Somali is to afaan-oromo.

Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :

^^
Hmm! I see what you mean, sorry for the misunderstanding, but Obenga never claimed it to be a Niger-Congo language, so it's probably a typo.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

But you can *use* one word to suggest or deny any relationship you want in between any langauges you choose.

That's why this 'selective word comparison' method - which has such great 'intuitive' appeal to the laymen, is not scientifically valid.

Which is how Clyde can create entire lists of words with similar definitions from languages in West Africa, to India, to Japan! LMFO [Big Grin]

quote:
Look at a map of the logical geographic expanse of Afro-Asiatic.

Now superimpose upon upon this and imaginery map of Winters - Nigerian - Dravidian - Japanese language family.

Again, I find it hilarious how Clyde can so easily dismiss more logical sounding information for more 'fantastic' notions.

quote:
As for Obenga - he was primarily and rightly concerned with debunking the Hamito-Semito mythology which at it's height attempted to reduce mdw ntr and hence Kemet to a sub-division of of the semitic world.

He wanted to show that mdw ntr was related to other African languages and *not* to semitic and berber - and therefore to the languages of non-Blacks.

Given that linguists now root the cushitic division at the base of Afrisan language with the Semitic and Berber divisions being the youngest - this argument is no longer necessary and in fact it *backfires*.

Here is why:

The orignal intent is to show that mdw ntr is African.

But this is today nearly universally acknolwedged.

So by arguing that Berber and Semitic are *unrelated* to other Afrisan languages, you simply end up moving African languages including Ethio-semitic and *all* of the Berber languages out of Africa.

When you do this you re-enable Eurocentric back-migration mythology all over again.

It's critically important to keep up with current scholarship.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The problem with some Africanists scholars like Obenga is that they still create works based solely on a knee-jerk reaction to (out-dated) Eurocentric works. In the past, Eurocentrics were correct that Egyptian was closely related to Berber and Semitic which are members of a language family. They were wrong however to say that such a family originated among "caucazoid" in Western Asia, and more accurate scholarship has shown that the phylum originated on the African continent among black Africans and that included Berber as well as Semitic. Even genetics has shown a migration of Africans into Western Asia during the Neolithic that very well could correspond to the introduction of Semitic languages to that area. Yet Clyde and his ilk desperately dismiss such evidence that helps the Africanist cause. Why??

quote:
Neith-Athena asks:

Then how would one explain the similarities that Dr. Winters and Obenga point out? Is it not possible to trace Afrasan to an even older African language from which it and other phyla split?

Also, different contributors to the forun keep mentioning older African cultural developments that culminated in Kemet but existed long before. Can anyone say more about this? Has any research been done on it, and if so, could you point out the sources?

quote:

alTakruri answers:

Rather than genetic families, Dalby proposes
region wide affinity of speech overlaid by
fragmentation of unaffiliated speakers.

code:
0. AFRICA / AFRIQUE géosecteur 1. AFRO-ASIAN / AFRO-ASIATIQUE phylosecteur
00. MANDIC phylozone 10. TAMAZIC phylozone
01. SONGHAIC phylozone 11. EGYPTIC phylozone
02. SAHARIC phylozone 12. SEMITIC phylozone
03. SUDANIC phylozone 13. BEJIC phylozone
04. NILOTIC phylozone 14. CUSHITIC phylozone
05. EAST SAHEL géozone 15. EYASIC phylozone
06. KORDOFANIC phylozone 16. OMOTIC phylozone
07. RIFT VALLEY géozone 17. CHARIC phylozone
08. KHOISANIC phylozone 18. MANDARIC phylozone
09. KALAHARI géozone 19. BAUCHIC phylozone

^ This makes sense. Members of different language phylums who co-exist and interact tend to pick up the language affinity of the other. It is theorized that Niger-Congo speakers like Wolof could have picked up Afrasian similarities from the nearby Berber speaking groups who have been known to reside in Senegal which was named after the Berber group Zenaga, and etc. Many Nilo-Saharan speakers of the Nile like the Nubians have Afrasian charactersitics in their speech and vice versa. Some similarities could arguably be also be due to very distant common origin. Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan are twao distinct phlyums, yet great affinity between them both has led scholars to think both phyla descend from a common origin. Afrasian is thought to share distant relation with another phylum that probably became extinct etc. Ultimately *all* African languages share a common origin and to go further even all languages on the earth! But to deny the present diversity of existing languages and their phyla all for the purpose of a "Negro African language" is not only silly but downright insulting.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Even genetics has shown a migration of Africans into Western Asia during the Neolithic that very well could correspond to the introduction of Semitic languages to that area. Yet Clyde and his ilk desperately dismiss such evidence that helps the Africanist cause. Why??

They keep playing checkers, when the game is chess. They play checkers because it's a game they know. They don't want to face the fact that the game is *not* checkers anymore and that by stubbornly continuing to play checkers in a chess match, they are doomed.

Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :

"Afro-Asiatic", "Afro-All_The_Way_Over_There" "Hamitic", "Semitic", "Mediterranean", " Phoenician ", "In-Between this and that", "anything but Black African", "Mars" and so on and so forth, are all attempts in stealing and degrading Black Africa's history. Simple as that!

The stupidity of anyone attempting, pretending and/or ignoring, or even denouncing the intimate and genetic relationship Black African languages like Niger-Congo/Bantu speaking family, share with languages of Ancient Kemet can never be overstated and should be struck down (almost with vengeance) at the sight of such attempts.

Quoting my custom coined term, I must say that the “Intelligent Stupidity” (stupidity by choice) of some seemingly smart people in this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kemson:

The stupidity of anyone attempting, pretending and/or ignoring, or even denouncing the intimate and genetic relationship Black African languages like Niger-Congo/Bantu speaking family, share with languages of Ancient Kemet can never be overstated and should be struck down (almost with vengeance) at the sight of such attempts.

Do you know of any modern linguists who deny interrelationships between African language families?

Does this imply that logical sub-groups such as 'bantu' or 'semitic' do not exist?

If you admit that Bantu language family exist and Semtitic language family exist, then isn't it possible that they may in turn be a part of larger and distinct groupings such as Niger Congo and Afrisan ? ?

It's important to remember that language is not skin color.

Would you agree that the Amharic language of Ethiopian Blacks is more closely related to Hebrew than to Zulu?

One of the errors some Africanists make is the attempt to force-fit languages of Blacks into a singular catagory. [id Mandingo - Dravidian]

Many if not most Hebrews are white, but their language is still more closely related to the languages of Blacks than it is to the language of other whites.

It's interesting to note the vitroil spewed against Afrisan language group.

It is simply because it's a language family that transgresses 'racial' boundaries?

Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :

I have read here and elsewhere that Jewish people were originally not so light-skinned as they are today. Obviously being Semites they were originally from East Africa, but what about around the time when "civilization" per the Eurocentrists begins in the Middle East?

Are there any theories as to the origin of the Sumerians? I know it is considered a language isolate, but would appreciate knowing of any possible theories as to their origin.

Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :

al-Takruri,

I have noticed that you speak or write Hebrew. Is it Classical/Biblical Hebrew, or modern Hebrew?

Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Do you know of any modern linguists who deny interrelationships between African language families?

Does this imply that logical sub-groups such as 'bantu' or 'semitic' do not exist?

If you admit that Bantu language family exist and Semtitic language family exist, then isn't it possible that they may in turn be a part of larger and distinct groupings such as Niger Congo and Afrisan ? ?

It's important to remember that language is not skin color.

Would you agree that the Amharic language of Ethiopian Blacks is more closely related to Hebrew than to Zulu?

One of the errors some Africanists make is the attempt to force-fit languages of Blacks into a singular catagory. [id Mandingo - Dravidian]

Many if not most Hebrews are white, but their language is still more closely related to the languages of Blacks than it is to the language of other whites.

It's interesting to note the vitroil spewed against Afrisan language group.

It is simply because it's a language family that transgresses 'racial' boundaries?

Would you agree that "the Amharic language of Ethiopian" may actually be or is one of the "Hebrew" languages of the Ancient and not the questionable Israeli Hebrew spoken in Israel today? Why does "the Amharic language of Ethiopian" have to "be closely realated" if it is Hebrew? Why can't Zulu be a Hebrew languge?

One of the errors some Eurocentrics make is to categorize what they don't understand at all or enough and constantly shoot themselves in the foot by underestimate Black Africa's abilities to know their past.

In proving my point of unconscious racism you claim:

"It's important to remember that language is not skin color."

Only to contradict yourself five lines later by writing:

"Many if not most Hebrews are white..." ???

The fantasy idea that many or most Hebrews are White is dead wrong! It is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Sorry buddy but your quotes are the hallmark of mis-education.

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :

One thing that seems to support the reality of family relations as characterized by the Afrasan macro-family, is the genetic divergence of the groups therein. Many of these groups in the said macro family [language-wise] descend from ancestral populations which show relatively recent divergence dates with respect to the other. For instance, consider E3b1 lineages - one would expect that populations which are largely part of this subclade, would speak a language that is a derivative and hence, close to that of the immediate precursor population. The scenario here would essentially be one where the language of the predominant lineage [paternal and/or maternal] within the population, is largely adopted by the population as a whole. And of course, in other cases, where populations are composites of two or more predominant lineages with distant geographic origins, acculturation may be the result of the predominantly spoken language, depending on the nature of the assimilation. Total language replacement [at least in the predominant lineage(s) of a population] in a situation where very little gene flow has occurred from outside, is relatively rare.

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Neith-Athena:
I have read here and elsewhere that Jewish people were originally not so light-skinned as they are today. Obviously being Semites they were originally from East Africa, but what about around the time when "civilization" per the Eurocentrists begins in the Middle East?

Are there any theories as to the origin of the Sumerians? I know it is considered a language isolate, but would appreciate knowing of any possible theories as to their origin.

Sumerian is related to African and Dravidian language. Rawlinson said they belonged to the Kushtite heritage.

.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kemson:
Would you agree that "the Amharic language of Ethiopian" may actually be or is one of the "Hebrew" languages of the Ancient and not the questionable Israeli Hebrew spoken in Israel today?

No I wouldn't agree because Hebrew is a language, not a family of languages which may then subsume Amharic. Semitic does not equal Hebrew.

Please cite a linguist who considers Amharic a "Hebrew" language?

quote:
Why does "the Amharic language of Ethiopian" have to "be closely realated" if it is Hebrew?

According to linguists, Amharic is not Hebrew, they are two different, related languages. Again please cite a linguist to the contrary?

quote:
Why can't Zulu be a Hebrew languge?

Because Hebrew is one language and Zulu is another. The case is not, as you apparently believe that Hebrew is any group of languages that you arbitrarily decide to call Hebrew.

quote:
One of the errors some Eurocentrics make is to categorize what they don't understand at all or enough and constantly shoot themselves in the foot by underestimate Black Africa's abilities to know their past.

I agree. But how does this answer my questions?

quote:
In proving my point of unconscious racism...

Interesting, I must of have missed this proof?

So far instead of answering my questions, you asked other questions, which I have answered, while patiently awaiting answers to my own.

Answering questions may be a form of proof.

But dodging them, and then asking other questions instead, is certainly not. You've proven nothing, other than unwillingness or inability to answer my questions.

quote:
"It's important to remember that language is not skin color."

Only to contradict yourself five lines later by writing:

"Many if not most Hebrews are white...

......but their language is still more closely related to the languages of Blacks than it is to the language of other whites.

The two sentenses support one another, they do not contradict one another, but you cut off half of the second sentense in order to label it a contradiction. tsk tsk. [Roll Eyes]

The unaddressed point is that language families cannot necessarily be segrated by skin color.

Evidently you admit this fact, and cannot refute it. Why else respond with polemical miscitation?

quote:
The fantasy idea that many or most Hebrews are White is dead wrong!

Then you can prove this? Does this statement depend upon calling Zulu's "Hebrews"?

quote:
It is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

The statement is a hyperbole, when what is required is proof. [and answers]

quote:
Sorry buddy but your quotes are the hallmark of mis-education.

Sorry but your post consists of flimsy emotional rhetoric which is meant to distract from your inability to answer my questions, so let me ask them again....

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Questions for Kemson.....

quote:
Do you know of any modern linguists who deny interrelationships between African language families?

Evidently not, otherwise why does Kemson not answer?

quote:
Does this imply that logical sub-groups such as 'bantu' or 'semitic' do not exist?

quote:
If you admit that Bantu language family exist and Semtitic language family exist, then isn't it possible that they may in turn be a part of larger and distinct groupings such as Niger Congo and Afrisan ? ?

quote:
Would you agree that the Amharic language of Ethiopian Blacks is more closely related to Hebrew than to Zulu?

You did semi-address/sidestep this by saying something about Zulu being a *Hebrew* langauge, but for this "answer" to be taken seriously you'd need to reference a linguist. Can you reference a linguist who thinks that Zulu is a "Hebrew" language?

quote:
It is simply because it's a language family that transgresses 'racial' boundaries, that you oppose the Afrisan language group?

Evidently the answer is yes. Otherwise why not answer?

Please reply with *actual answers* to my questions this time, and not emotional melodrama and "panic-attack" rhetorics. Thank you.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
One thing that seems to support the reality of family relations as characterized by the Afrasan macro-family, is the genetic divergence of the groups therein. Many of these groups in the said macro family [language-wise] descend from ancestral populations which show relatively recent divergence dates with respect to the other.

Agreed, genetic, but also geographical and historical.

The existence of the language family itself is about as soundly based as is the existence of any other language family.

Linguists debate the internal infrastructure and which languages do or do not belong, but they don't deny that said relationships exist.

No evidences have been provided to the contrary, polemics notwithstanding.

Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

Because Hebrew is one language and Zulu is another. The case is not, as you apparently believe that Hebrew is any group of languages that you arbitrarily decide to call Hebrew.

This is the best you can do? Your response is weak but giving you a slight benefit of doubt, it's still a response dispite it's terribly poor quality.

I believe this unknown White Hebrew you are talking about is a fake, a sham, a lie whether you know it or not. There is no way some White Europeans can be speaking your suggested mysterious Hebrew while Black Africans are speaking something close to it. The simple fact that you follow this patterned order of trying to make a fantasy, Atlantis like claim in language form renders any answer you expected to your questions completely void. Rather, I prefer to penetrate and reveal the goals of your erroneous "many White Hebrews" hypothesis. At best, they are attempts to continue and actualize myths and at worst, plagiaristic in nature.

Explaining which White people speak your suggested White Hebrew and even where some of them are located today might help your case but you have provided none of this information yet expect your questions to be answered???

Dispite your charge wrong charge of "flimsy emotional rhetoric", even so, they are more constructive, have a better logical flow, designed to be easily followed and less flimsy and more realistic compared to yours sloppy joe like logics you kick.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
This is the best you can do?

No, but given that you once again completely fail to answer any of the questions you were asked....it's all that is necessary.

Any more would be beating a dead horse.

You simply expose yourself as someone who likes to rage-rant, but can't answer even the simplist questions pertaining to what he is ranting about.

Continue ranting then.

My job is done. I'm thru with you. [Cool]

Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

No, but given that you once again completely fail to answer any of the questions you were asked....it's all that is necessary.

Please; I've read enough articles on this forum and quite aware of this popular cyclic technique used in freezing debates. The incorrect and excessive usege of "...you didn't answer my questions so I won't answer yours..." is dismissed as childish. It provides no details to what needs to be awswered and how this proves your "White Hebrew" hypothesis.

When questions are flawed, they are to be pointed out just like any other kind of flaws by those who recognize them.

If my senses serve me well as they usually do unfailingly, I would guess that the ideas behind your White Hebrew hypothesis is an attempt to convert/artificially upgrade current Jewish people who are originally of European origin into "Hebrews" (guess the myth that Jews were slaves in Ancient Kemet is dying fast if not dead already). If I am proven correct you might be in for some seriously lengthy Kemson reading proving you wrong. Some would call my literal reaction opening "a can of worms". I would call it opening a can of truths.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^

quote:
You simply expose yourself as someone who likes to rage-rant, but can't answer even the simplist questions pertaining to what he is ranting about.

Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^

quote:
You simply expose yourself as someone who likes to rage-rant, but can't answer even the simplist questions pertaining to what he is ranting about.

Yet another popular cyclic technique used in freezing debates; "Rant, Rage, Angry"....Whatever man!

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ Don't delude yourself.

There is no debate, since you have no evidence and can't answer any questions.

The only thing frozen is you.

quote:
Whatever man!

"Whatever" is not and answer, is not evidence and is not and argument.

It's simply a semantical placeholder for a frozen semanticist completely shutdown by an inability to answer simple questions.

Thaw out, and come up with the some answers, Lion/aka/Kemson.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

The existence of the language family itself is about as soundly based as is the existence of any other language family.

Linguists debate the internal infrastructure and which languages do or do not belong, but they don't deny that said relationships exist.

No evidences have been provided to the contrary, polemics notwithstanding.

*sigh* Indeed, some folks just don't get it Rasol. No one here, not even I, denied that certain relations exist between language families, but that does not in anyway refute the existence of the language families themselves. You are correct that Kemson contradicts himself when even he uses the established classifications like 'Bantu' and 'Semitic'-- both language groups with the former part of Niger-Congo and the latter Afrasian.

Of course language does not say much about the people who speak it. Thus non-black even racist Arabs of Western Asia speak Semitic (Afrasian) languages that originated in Africa. While most Indo-European languages are not spoken by whites but by brown and even black peoples of India!

What's funny is that while you have radical Afrocentrics like Kemson who are trying to argue for a single black African language phylum, you don't hear anything about Eurocentrics trying to do the same. Many like to point out Indo-European which is the largest and pervasive phylum in Europe, but it is not the only one, and there are others like Uralic. And so while folks like Kemson continue to deny actual scientific analysis of languages The Euros sit back and laugh at them. They do not realize that the number of linguistic lineages coincide to the age of populations. The older the population, the greater linguistic diversity it has. Africa is more ancient than Europe so of course it has more language phylums than Europe has. It once had even more in the past but eventually the 4 phyla became dominant.

In the meantime Kemson, I seriously hope you don't believe in Clyde's pseudo-linguistic classification of a Mande-Dravidian phylum. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Neith-Athena:

I have read here and elsewhere that Jewish people were originally not so light-skinned as they are today. Obviously being Semites they were originally from East Africa, but what about around the time when "civilization" per the Eurocentrists begins in the Middle East?

Well we don't know exactly when and where for certain Semitic arrived to Western Asia. Linguists can only hypothesize based on constructions of words or phrases, and since most linguists think that since Semitic split from a northern tier that encompassed Egyptian and Berber, that it would have likely entered through the Sinai and into the Levant. I believe the timeframe was estimated to be 10,000-8,000 B.C.E. The funny thing is that corresponding culture in the Levant at that time called Natufian was not only characterized as the first to develop agriculture (and thus civilization) but was anthropologically first categorized as "negroid"! We even have genetic evidence from modern Levantine populations of East African lineages derived from that same time period. Coincidence, I think not.

quote:
Are there any theories as to the origin of the Sumerians? I know it is considered a language isolate, but would appreciate knowing of any possible theories as to their origin.

Sumerian is an agglutinative language that at best only bears a distant relation to the Hurro-Urartian languages of northern Mesopotamia through Anatolia. But still Sumerian seems to be a vestige of another distinct language family that apparently did not survive. The region from which it probably originated (many hypothesize in Central Asia) was overtaken by Indo-European speakers.

By the way Clyde claims Sumerian to be an African language based only on the fact that it is agglutinative as well as similarities between random assorted words-- NO evidence of a direct genetic link.

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

^ This will seem odd, esp. from me and almost as a defense of Dr. Winters, though as always, it's just and honest observation.......

In a way, Winters simply mirrors the standard practice of much European scholarship - steady on the look out for 1 million ways of claiming ancient languages, cultures and civilisations as 'belonging' to them.

Consider some recent claims made in peer review scholarship by Europeans:

* footprints in the sahara which have arches instead of flat feet are labeled - leucoderm. [ie - white]

* Lineages M1 and U6 are claimed to be of non African origin even though there is no non African progenator lineage to be named, and no non African population who bears significant underived U6/M1 lineages.

* Nostracists who try to link virtually every attested [literate] language back to a putative proto-Indo-Aryan, using the same approach of arbitrarily chosen, selective word matchings.

* Redefinition of the root discourse of history so as to conflate or manufacture a role for Europe: Western Civilisation, the Middle East, the Mediterranean - none of these concepts exist in history. Rather they are recent ideologies - which profoundly alter the way in which history is preceived, and often specially function to create and imaginary European provenance.

Non African readers who find Winters outragious, should I think look in a mirror, or read a 'western' history book, because that's exactly how ridiculous the 'western' version of history often sounds.

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :

quote:
It is simply because it's a language family that transgresses 'racial' boundaries?

That sums up the root of the Afro-Asian language problem...the "Asian" part in that word is really minor linguistically speaking, it's just a cynical way to give too much importance to the group responsible for the "civilizing" (culturally and spiritually) of Europeans a.k.a the Semitic speaking people of Western Asia who happen to be similar in skin complexion as Europeans...even now knowing modern Western Asian(Arabs and Israelis) they are more than happy by that "Asian" gift in "Afro-Asian languages" given to them for free by linguistic scientist...but it's totally stupid, since serious linguists know where that language originated from and where it is the most diverse....the number of Afrasian languages outside Africa is meaningless....I don't know why some scholars don't try to strip that "Asian" word ruse...

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AFRICA I:

quote:
It is simply because it's a language family that transgresses 'racial' boundaries?
That sums up the root of the Afro-Asian language problem...the "Asian" part in that word is really minor linguistically speaking, it's just a cynical way to give too much importance to the group responsible for the "civilizing" (culturally and spiritually) of Europeans a.k.a the Semitic speaking people of Western Asia who happen to be similar in skin complexion as Europeans...even knowing modern Western Asian(Arabs and Israelis) they are more than happy by that "Asian" gift in "Afro-Asian languages" given to them for free by linguistic scientist...but it's totally stupid, since serious linguists know where that language originated from and where it is the most diverse....the number of Afrasian languages outside Africa is meaningless....I don't know why some scholars don't try to strip that "Asian" word ruse...

You're absolutely correct. Well said.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ Keep in mind that when Western scholars first found out that the various Afrasian languages were related, they postulated the origins of the phylum to be in Western Asia concieved by kacazoids, with some of these k-zoids moving into Africa and becoming black (Hamites) hence the early name Hamito-Semitic. Now that the 'Hamitic hypothesis' has been debunked, and it's now realized the phylum actually originated in Africa, the name Afroasiatic or Afrasian is used merely to reflect the geographic range of these languages-- that they are spoken from Africa to Asia (Western Asia to be exact). This could perhaps be compared to the term Indo-European which describes the languages of that phylum to be spoken from India to Europe.

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

This will seem odd, esp. from me and almost as a defense of Dr. Winters, though as always, it's just and honest observation.......

In a way, Winters simply mirrors the standard practice of much European scholarship - steady on the look out for 1 million ways of claiming ancient languages, cultures and civilisations as 'belonging' to them.

Consider some recent claims made in peer review scholarship by Europeans:

* footprints in the sahara which have arches instead of flat feet are labeled - leucoderm. [ie - white]

* Lineages M1 and U6 are claimed to be of non African origin even though there is no non African progenator lineage to be named, and no non African population who bears significant underived U6/M1 lineages.

* Nostracists who try to link virtually every attested [literate] language back to a putative proto-Indo-Aryan, using the same approach of arbitrarily chosen, selective word matchings.

* Redefinition of the root discourse of history so as to conflate or manufacture a role for Europe: Western Civilisation, the Middle East, the Mediterranean - none of these concepts exist in history. Rather they are recent ideologies - which profoundly alter the way in which history is preceived, and often specially function to create and imaginary European provenance.

Non African readers who find Winters outragious, should I think look in a mirror, or read a 'western' history book, because that's exactly how ridiculous the 'western' version of history often sounds.

I am very much aware of the psuedo-crap that white scholars spew, but it is just disappointing that Africanist scholars like Winters will not rise above that but unwittingly emulate the white racist they so desperately fight against!

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rasol:

quote:
Originally posted by AFRICA I:

quote:
It is simply because it's a language family that transgresses 'racial' boundaries?
That sums up the root of the Afro-Asian language problem...the "Asian" part in that word is really minor linguistically speaking, it's just a cynical way to give too much importance to the group responsible for the "civilizing" (culturally and spiritually) of Europeans a.k.a the Semitic speaking people of Western Asia who happen to be similar in skin complexion as Europeans...even knowing modern Western Asian(Arabs and Israelis) they are more than happy by that "Asian" gift in "Afro-Asian languages" given to them for free by linguistic scientist...but it's totally stupid, since serious linguists know where that language originated from and where it is the most diverse....the number of Afrasian languages outside Africa is meaningless....I don't know why some scholars don't try to strip that "Asian" word ruse...
You're absolutely correct. Well said.

Ironically, it is a Euro Linguist who has already taken that direction: Ehret with 'Afrasan'!

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
am very much aware of the psuedo-crap that white scholars spew, but it is just disappointing that Africanist scholars like Winters will not rise above that but unwittingly emulate the white racist they so desperately fight against!

They are really helping keep racism alive, but they don't know it and can't see it.

Too bad.

Posted by Macawiis_Bile_Nigiish (Member # 11724) on :

English....Japanese....Somali..

(Yes)......Hai.....Ha..

(Don't know)...Wakaranai.....Magaranaye..

(Giraffe)....Kirin.....Girrin

(Mother).....Hahaoya......Hooyo

(Gone)........Takai.....Tagay

(Silent).......Musei......Amuuse

Japanese people are undercover Black Africans

lol

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :

Djehuti

quote:

I am very much aware of the psuedo-crap that white scholars spew, but it is just disappointing that Africanist scholars like Winters will not rise above that but unwittingly emulate the white racist they so desperately fight against!

I am not an Africanist. I am an Afrocentric researcher.

.

Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :

Maca you should intervene more, you are funny...how is your Japanese girlfriend?

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I am not an Africanist. I am an Afrocentric researcher.

^ I agree.

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :

^ Of course, not only Afrocentric but unfortunately one of the psuedo-nuts Afrocentrics white scholars enjoy being entertained by. Such people only hinder the work of real Afrocentric or Africanist scholars whatever you call it.

quote:
Originally posted by Macawiis_Bile_Nigiish:
English....Japanese....Somali..

(Yes)......Hai.....Ha..

(Don't know)...Wakaranai.....Magaranaye..

(Giraffe)....Kirin.....Girrin

(Mother).....Hahaoya......Hooyo

(Gone)........Takai.....Tagay

(Silent).......Musei......Amuuse

Japanese people are undercover Black Africans

lol

Yes but according to Winters, Mande black Africans not Somali! LMFO [Big Grin]

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :

And Africanist is simply a student or scholar of African history. Shomarka Keita, Christopher Ehret, and Cheikh Anta Diop are Africanists.

Afrocentrism is a political ideology to which Dr. Winters ascribes, and whose premises were 1st codified by Molefi Asante.