posted
Comparative and historical linguistics is not based on the comparison of isolated words. This method of research determines relationships based on the number of lexical items and linguistic features shared by two or more languages.
Linguistic research is based on the classification or taxonomy of languages. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of purposes . First, it is necessary for the identification of language families. Secondly, linguistic taxonomy gives us the material to reconstruct the Proto-language of a people and discover its regular sound correspondences.
There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, topological, and areal. A genealogical classifica-tion groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or Proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A topological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.
COMPARATIVE METHOD
The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.
The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages. To reconstruct a Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or type of vowels. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain places in words having similar meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
I.Consonantal Correspondence
English Tamil Manding
s=/=s
woman asa musa
t=/=t
fire ti ta
l=/=l
house lon lu 'family habitation
d=/=t
law di tili camp dagha otagh forest kaadu tuu
m=/=m
mother amma ma land man ma 'surface,area'
k=/=k
kill kal ki
man uku moko
b=/=p
great pal ba
x=/=s sheep xar 'ram' sara
c=/=s penis col sol-ma
abundant cal,sal s'ya
II. Full Correspondence of terms from Basic Vocabulary English Dravidian Manding life zi 'abundance clay banko-mannu banko blacksmith inumu numu lie kalla kalon cultivation bey be lord,chief gasa kana,gana to recite sid, sed siti great bal ba to do cey ke rock kal kulu road sila if,what eni ni to cut teg tege exalted ma
Linguist determine relationships by comparing terms from the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary of a language include lexical items of ‘universal human experience’, that exist among all humans that relate to a speakers culture, e.g., body parts, numerals, personal pronouns, the demonstratives and etc.
LANGUAGES /PROXIMATE /DISTANT /FINITE Dravidian i a u Mande i a u Fulani o a Serere e a Wolof i a u _________________________________________________________
HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS
Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of related languages. We use historical linguistic methods to document the history of a language in both vocabulary and grammar.
The historical linguist looks at language across languages and uses the knowledge he learns to reconstruct the Proto (hypothetical)-language form of a present language traced back to ancient times. Each lexical item traced back to the Proto-language is called a cognate.
This makes it clear that a person's language provides us with evidence of the elements of a group's culture. Using semantic anthropology we can reconstruct Paleo-terms. Paleo-terms can help us make inferences about a culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologist make precise inferences about a groups culture elements.
Phonology is the study of changes, transformations, modifications, etc., of phonemes or speech sounds during the history and development of a language. To denote these changes the linguist considers each phoneme in the light of the part it plays in the structure of speech forms.
There are no clearly established linguistic markers that can measure language change. Languages are not constrained by a preprogrammed reproductive cycle. This means that language can undergo extensive and radical changes over a either a short, or long time span.
This makes it very difficult for historical and comparative linguist to chart linguistic changes based solely or archaeologi -cal data. Thusly, borrowing and convergence are important factors which must be accounted for in any discussion of language change. Linguists therefore, can not examine language change in isolation from the social and historical factors affecting the speaker of the language(s) being examined and discussed.
The socioderme is the transitional unit in language change. This view is especially true, given the fact that language is communal property, i.e. the property of the social or ethnic group which speaks it.
It is the group that identifies aspects of a language and legitimize its proper usage in society. Group membership not only produces variations across gender and ethnic groups, it also helps establish the norms of language spoken by that particular group.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dejehuti quote: _____________________________________________________ I suggest you read AlTakruri's following on such methods right here!! ____________________________________________________
What does this have to do with comparative methods. Does al-Takruri teach linguistics? Has he published any articles in comparative linguistics? What qualifications does this individual have that make him an authority in this area?
Everything I quoted about comparative linguistics can be found in any basic linguistics book. You refuse to even read the post correctly, because you are afraid of the truth. Please, demonstrate where my discussion of comparative linguistics is incorrect. In your discussion please provide examples for the Dravidian languages that disconfirm anything I wrote, or a linguistics text disputing my discussion of comparative linguistics.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey man, don't kick me around. I ain't said squat against you. In fact, me, al~Takruri, owes you, Ahmad, for teaching me about replicable and falsifiable requirements for positing truly scientific hypotheses. Now I might not agree with you on some things but I ain't never called up your credentials. Nuther fact is I pointed out your use of status quo quid pro qou (or whatever the fox the proper Latin is) standard methodology in that "cow" example. So jump off my shid.
See, all this debate shid gets evybody all hopped up, academic matters deserve academic discussion not all this hot seat BS.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Dejehuti quote: _____________________________________________________ I suggest you read AlTakruri's following on such methods right here!! ____________________________________________________
What does this have to do with comparative methods. Does al-Takruri teach linguistics? Has he published any articles in comparative linguistics? What qualifications does this individual have that make him an authority in this area?
Everything I quoted about comparative linguistics can be found in any basic linguistics book. You refuse to even read the post correctly, because you are afraid of the truth. Please, demonstrate where my discussion of comparative linguistics is incorrect. In your discussion please provide examples for the Dravidian languages that disconfirm anything I wrote, or a linguistics text disputing my discussion of comparative linguistics.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
There are conflicting views regarding the origin of Dravidian languages in India. According to some scholars, the Dravidian language originated in India19,20, while others proposed that the Elamo-Dravidian languages originated in the Elam province of southwestern Iran, and the dispersal of the Dravidian languages into India took place with human migration from this region21,22.
Accordingly, the ancestors of present-day Dravidians brought with them the technologies of agriculture and animal domestication, thereby supporting demic expansion23.
Our estimates of time to the most recent common ancestor for two zebu clusters clearly indicate Neolithic transition. These are potentially the genetic signals of independent cattle domestication in India, in parallel to earlier suggested Near Eastern domestication for European and African cattle*.
In future, probing by Y-chromosome STR marker will shed more light on the unequal gene flow associated with such kind of single locus study
Gene Study Traces Cattle Herding in Africa Ben Harder for National Geographic News April 11, 2002 Evidence suggests that sheep and goats, first domesticated in the Near East, were imported into Africa through colonization and ocean-going trade. Scientists have long speculated that the domestication of cattle also occurred first in the Near East and that the practice of herding cattle was similarly imported.
But new evidence, reported in the April 12 issue of the journal Science, suggests that Africans independently domesticated cattle.
Belgian geneticist Olivier Hanotte, who headed the new study, said the research "reconciles the two schools of thought" about how cattle domestication occurred in Africa.
"There were Near Eastern influences" on African herds, he said, "but they came after local domestication."
Since then, there has been considerable mixing of African and Asian breeds. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
According to our genetic analyses, African cattle originated neither from Indian humped cattle nor from Near Eastern cattle. Those findings support the separate-origins theory of cattle domestication favored by archaeologists, who had maintained that in Africa, too, cattle domestication was local. Our results confirm that African cattle stem from the domestication of a B. taurus type of wild ox that inhabited northern Africa when the Sahara region was much less arid than it is today. It may even be the case that the distinctive pastoral lifestyle of African tribes such as the Masai is of tremendous antiquity, and could pre-date the capture of cattle and development of milking......
The Indian humped cattle belong to a genetically distinct group of their own. So the genetic evidence firmly sides with the archaeological findings: early farmers, in what are now Pakistan and India, did indeed capture and tame their own zebu-like version of the wild oxPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are conflicting views regarding the origin of Dravidian languages in India. According to some scholars, the Dravidian language originated in India19,20, while others proposed that the Elamo-Dravidian languages originated in the Elam province of southwestern Iran, and the dispersal of the Dravidian languages into India took place with human migration from this region21,22...
Kind of reminds me of something...
“We found that haplogroup M frequency drops abruptly from about 60% in India to about 5% in Iran, marking the western border of the haplogroup M distribution. A similarly sharp border cuts the distribution of Indian-specific mtDNA haplogroups to the east and to the north of the subcontinent. We therefore propose that the initial mtDNA pool established upon the peopling of South Asia has not been replaced but has rather been reshaped in situ by major demographic episodes in the past and garnished by relatively minor events of gene flow both from the West and the East during more recent chapters of the demographic history in the region.” - Mait Metspalu et al.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Winters I dont think anyone is denying that there are certain terms in Dravidian that match certain African languages. The question here whether this is a coincidence and HOW does one go about showing OTHER evidence of contact, migration or transmission of people or languages from Africa to India. This is where you are running into problems. Taken on its own, the linkages you posted are not enough and can be seen as mere coincidences. This is where the REAL research should begin, in going out and investigating the possible corridors for migration, ancient groups along those corridors and any ancient linguistic evidence also along those corridors. While I know it is not reasonable to expect one person to do such research, that IS what is required to gather enough evidence to possibly PROVE such a theory. Right now, you may or may not find research and publications that support your hypothesis, but these papers most often do not support the specific facts that you propose. Therefore, you can generalize the findings of the papers, but that generalization cannot be taken as tacit support for your thesis.
The comments here should be seen as useful in guiding continued research on the issue. If you feel that you are correct, then you should be able to FIND more evidence to support your theory. Therefore, continued work in the languages and populations of India and Africa must be persued in order to clarify and revise your claims. Science is an ongoing effort and we cannot cling to ideas if they are shown to be invalid by recent research.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DougM quote _______________________________________________________________ The question here whether this is a coincidence and HOW does one go about showing OTHER evidence of contact, migration or transmission of people or languages from Africa to India. This is where you are running into problems. ___________________________________________________________________________
This is where you are wrong, there could be dispute if I only presented cognate lexical items to support an African origin. But in my post relating to Dravidian and African languages I also present, verbs, demonstratives and other linguistic features that support an African origin for the Dravidian people. This provides too many systematic features shared by the speakers of these languages to be coincidence. The African origin of the Dravidians is guiding recent research in the history of Dravidian people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is where you are wrong, there could be dispute if I only presented cognate lexical items to support an African origin. But in my post relating to Dravidian and African languages I also present, verbs, demonstratives and other linguistic features that support an African origin for the Dravidian people. This provides too many systematic features shared by the speakers of these languages to be coincidence. The African origin of the Dravidians is guiding recent research in the history of Dravidian people.
The Dravidian languages are agglunative, and share this same feature with languages from Finland to Korea. Yet even linguists know such languages are not closely related, but are distantly related as Eurasian languages.
Don't you think it is fool-hardy to brand such similarities to African(nonEurasian) languages especially those in West Africa as being closely related, let alone related at all?!!
And what about Planet Asia's response that non of the phonetics match with reconstructed proto-Dravidian?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dejehuti quote: __________________________________________________________________ And what about Planet Asia's response that non of the phonetics match with reconstructed proto-Dravidian? ____________________________________________________________________
Where is planet asia's response?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Winters, there is nothing personal about being shown that you may be wrong about certain things. It happens all the time in science, especially history, where a published or documented theory gets shot down by new research and findings. This is why you have to continually revise and update your work in order to reflect more recent data. Therefore, to reject new data, as if your work is infallable is ludicrous. You must accept that new data can and will change some established theories and necessitate revision or abandonment. The linquistic arguments you posted seem valid, however, I am not familiar with either language family, so I cannot say whether those are accurate mappings. What I want to know is where you got these mappings. Did you research Dravidian and African languages directly and come up with those mappings, or are you relying on the works of others? Have you revised and updated your work since you originally wrote it in the 70's?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M quote: _______________________________________________________________
I want to know is where you got these mappings. Did you research Dravidian and African languages directly and come up with those mappings, or are you relying on the works of others? Have you revised and updated your work since you originally wrote it in the 70's? _______________________________________________________________________
This research is ongoing it does not date back to the 1970's.
My work is based both on the work of others and my own research, especially in relation to the Dravido-Mande relationships.
In recent years my research has been the reconstruction of paleo-Dravido-African culture terms.
I am a falsificationist. If someone can disconfirm my work I must accept it.
This tread is not about my Dravidian research. It is about historical and comparative lingutics. It was posted to show the methods used to determine relationships between and among people based on linguistics.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same that Diop did when he tried to connect Ancient Egyptian to Wolof is what Winters is trying to do when attempts to connect Dravidian and Mande languages. In Diop's case in was proven to be wrong that AE and Wolof were closely related. As for the Afro-Dravidian connection it sounds like a bunch of patchwork data. Dravidian had a language closely related to Mande languages of West Africa with Nubian style red and black ware, yet possess no genetic lineages nor loan owrds from Nubia nor Mande languages. Mande languages aren't spoken in Sudan and were never spoken in Sudan so I fail to see the relevance on what Mr. Winters is saying.
posted
Planet Asia: __________________________________________________________________ In Diop's case in was proven to be wrong that AE and Wolof were closely related.
Mande languages aren't spoken in Sudan and were never spoken in Sudan so I fail to see the relevance on what Mr. Winters is saying. ____________________________________________________________________
Wm. Welmers claimed that the Mande as part of the Niger-Congo group was spoken in Nubia-Sudan as pointed out in my post on Dravidian-African languages.
Diop's work comparing wolof and Egyptian has never been disconfirmed. He presents hundreds of wolof and Egyptian cognates in :
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
Please provide the citations where Diop's work was disconfirmed.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Planet Asia: __________________________________________________________________ In Diop's case in was proven to be wrong that AE and Wolof were closely related.
Mande languages aren't spoken in Sudan and were never spoken in Sudan so I fail to see the relevance on what Mr. Winters is saying. ____________________________________________________________________
Wm. Welmers claimed that the Mande as part of the Niger-Congo group was spoken in Nubia-Sudan as pointed out in my post on Dravidian-African languages.
There's no proof that C-group Nubians ever spoke Mande languages
quote:Diop's work comparing wolof and Egyptian has never been disconfirmed. He presents hundreds of wolof and Egyptian cognates in :
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
Please provide the citations where Diop's work was disconfirmed.
Your methods and Diops methods clearly mirror each other yet provide no clear proof of a close relationship of the said languages you're both postulating.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You know there's dissension among linguists as to classifying African languages. All we ever hear about is Greenberg's 4-way tree system, but we neverhear it critiqued.
The "Affinity" system, however, seems to fit the facts much better.
Obenga's system is somewhere between Greenberg's treeing and the affinity, leaning closer to just modifying Greenberg.
quote:Originally posted by Planet Asia: In Diop's case in was proven to be wrong that AE and Wolof were closely related.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your methods and Diops methods clearly mirror each other yet provide no clear proof of a close relationship of the said languages you're both postulating. ___________________________________________________________________________
This paper by R.G. Schuh has not disconfirmed the work of Diop. Diop presented almost 400 wolof-Egyptian cognates and Schuh only presents a handful of examples in which he claims Diop is wrong. No one except a novice who had not read
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
The material in these books is explained in detail and Diop presents many examples in support of his proposition.
If you read the Schuh article seriously you discover that he maintains that there may be "vague cultural or physical world connection[s]" (p.9), but Diop was wrong overall. Even there were connections or there were no connections. You can't ride the fence on this issue if you are calling a researcher's work false.
This was just a bias view on the part of the author.
Dr. Schuh recommends that Diop would have been able to confirm his view of a African connection to Egyptian by first studying the sound resemblances in Niger-Kordofanian through reconstruction. This is ludicrious. The Indo-European language connection was not confirmed as a result of reconstructing proto-languages and then comparing them to proto- Greek and proto-Sanskrit. In fact when this language family was proposed the ideas of constructing proto-languages was unknown.
Schuh ends this piece discussesing the fact that the only relationship between and African language and Egyptian was Chadic. This was an interesting view, given the fact that the reference list indicates that his only published works are related to the Chadic people. This is interesting because he did not present any Chadic reconstructions to support his theory, the requirement he demanded Diop present before Diop's views could find acceptance by Schuh and the linguistic community.
I am sure that if Schuh would have wrote on any other topic his paper would not have been published.
But people are quick to publish articles attacking Afrocentric studies because it is popular for liberals and conservatives alike to attack this group. I recommend you read the books below: Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
for yourself instead of taking the word of Schuh.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hmm. When did that happen and who did it?
You know there's dissension among linguists as to classifying African languages.
Truth - and this is why linguistics, like physical anthropology, like genetics, like archeology, is sterile when pursued in isolation from other evidence.
Truth reveals itself along multiple lines of evidence.
quote: All we ever hear about is Greenberg's 4-way tree system, but we never hear it critiqued.
Greenberg was one of the advocates of the Nostratic "gambit" [ie - desparate attempt to reassert the primacy of Europeans, given decades of demoralisation due largely to Greenberg's contributionn to Afro-Asiatic to begin with].
quote:The "Affinity" system, however, seems to fit the facts much better.
Obenga's system is somewhere between Greenberg's treeing and the affinity, leaning closer to just modifying Greenberg.
I've read what Obenga I can get ahold of, but am not fluent in French - I still think some of his linguistic ideas are stuck in Eurocentric theories which even brilliant African scholars sometimes don't seem to have clue as to how to extract themselves from.
But clearly we need more Obenga's in the field of African linguistics.
Anything is better than trying to link Mandingo to Manderin Chinese, because Mande in Dravidian means people.
How much time to we waste on this nonsense before the official calls -get real!?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know Rasol, I just don't know. Guess we'll just have to keep plugging at it using the each one teach one method until we hit up on someone with the cash and influence to take us to the mainstream. Just imagine a 12 part documentary series produced by this EgyptSearch forum's regulars, the impact it'd have when marketed not so much to Discovery, A&E, PBS, etc., but to the higher grade elementary and to the secondary schoolers.
Oh where oh where is Borg?
In the meantime maybe we could be gentler in our approach so the oldschoolers will latch on instead of being offended and pushing away. But we will not be limited and resort to their "Aristotelian physics". We walk the way of the new world.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hmm. When did that happen and who did it?
You know there's dissension among linguists as to classifying African languages.
Truth - and this is why linguistics, like physical anthropology, like genetics, like archeology, is sterile when pursued in isolation from other evidence.
Truth reveals itself along multiple lines of evidence.
quote: All we ever hear about is Greenberg's 4-way tree system, but we never hear it critiqued.
Greenberg was one of the advocates of the Nostratic "gambit" [ie - desparate attempt to reassert the primacy of Europeans, given decades of demoralisation due largely to Greenberg's contributionn to Afro-Asiatic to begin with].
quote:The "Affinity" system, however, seems to fit the facts much better.
Obenga's system is somewhere between Greenberg's treeing and the affinity, leaning closer to just modifying Greenberg.
I've read what Obenga I can get ahold of, but am not fluent in French - I still think some of his linguistic ideas are stuck in Eurocentric theories which even brilliant African scholars sometimes don't seem to have clue as to how to extract themselves from.
But clearly we need more Obenga's in the field of African linguistics.
Anything is better than trying to link Mandingo to Manderin Chinese, because Mande in Dravidian means people.
How much time to we waste on this nonsense before the official calls -get real!?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: In the meantime maybe we could be gentler in our approach so the oldschoolers will latch on instead of being offended and pushing away. But we will not be limited and resort to their "Aristotelian physics". We walk the way of the new world.
We have to. Can't keep bringing knives to a gunfight.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol quote: _____________________________________________________________________ But clearly we need more Obenga's in the field of African linguistics ____________________________________________________________________
Did you know that Obenga was one of the first linguist to claim that Dravidian languages were related to African language?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes. And he also proposed a Negro-African phylum sans Semitic and Berber.
His reaction to the racist Hamito-Semitic phylum - which attempted to isolated Egyptians, Berbers and the precious Semitic family from "negro" influence.
Obenga and Diop helped advance the aims of restoration of African history.
Their sometimes reactionary oppositions to academic racism were understandable under the circumstances - but circumstances have changed because *they* changed them.
Our job is to ADVANCE the argument - not rally round the bandwagons in defense of outdated premises.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was just echoing Homburger (sp?) decades before him.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: rasol quote: _____________________________________________________________________ But clearly we need more Obenga's in the field of African linguistics ____________________________________________________________________
Did you know that Obenga was one of the first linguist to claim that Dravidian languages were related to African language?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Clyde Winters: Could you please tell me what your most convincing argument supporting your Dravidian/Mande/Atlantic connection hypothesis? I am asking that because although I definitely have no problem with your theory, the kind of evidence you provided here seems to can be found among clearly unrelated languages.
Respectfully,
Pax Dahomensis
-------------------- Federico Da Montefeltro Posts: 203 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pax dahomensis quote: ______________________________________________________________ To Clyde Winters: Could you please tell me what your most convincing argument supporting your Dravidian/Mande/Atlantic connection hypothesis? I am asking that because although I definitely have no problem with your theory, the kind of evidence you provided here seems to can be found among clearly unrelated languages. _________________________________________________________ I totally disagree. Please present examples from totally unrelated languages that share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology and consonantal regularity. The support for this reality comes from the evidence of congruence between and within these languages in the areas of syntax, morphology, demonstratives and vocabulary illlustrated above.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand what has been talked about on egyptsearch these past weeks. Dravidians are not african they are asian blacks. They did not come from the sudan they are indeginous to india. I have been reading all of the threads on dravidians and I see evidence that they are closely related to africans is not really correct what proof is their that Dravidians are related to africans? I think that draivdians are asian not african.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I totally disagree. Please present examples from totally unrelated languages that share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology and consonantal regularity. The support for this reality comes from the evidence of congruence between and within these languages in the areas of syntax, morphology, demonstratives and vocabulary illlustrated above. [/QB]
Are native languages spoken in the Philippines/Romance languages and Kemetic "totally unrelated languages" to you? If yes I can assure you that those languages share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology as well as consonantal regularity, like those you provided above.
Perhaps you could provide us more examples illustrating your consonantal correspondances as well as some of their regular exceptions.It would be more convincing IMO.
Posts: 203 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I totally disagree. Please present examples from totally unrelated languages that share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology and consonantal regularity. The support for this reality comes from the evidence of congruence between and within these languages in the areas of syntax, morphology, demonstratives and vocabulary illlustrated above.
Are native languages spoken in the Philippines/Romance languages and Kemetic "totally unrelated languages" to you? If yes I can assure you that those languages share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology as well as consonantal regularity, like those you provided above.
Perhaps you could provide us more examples illustrating your consonantal correspondances as well as some of their regular exceptions.It would be more convincing IMO.
Pax, can you please provide examples that demonstrate this point.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are a few: I know there are many of these french items that are not inherited from latin but I'm doing like Clyde Winters who doesn't judge necessary to consider earlier states of languages to compare them(may he correct me if I'm wrong).
Consonantal correspondances(Vocabulary):
kmt(b)=french(b) english ba.t boa bush bi.t abey bee
zero=r bâbâ boar drink ta ter land
n=n ân.t ano ring nk nike copulate
m=m mw.t mer mother mw mer water,sea
dj=t djadja tet head dj.t tã time,eternity adj.t tue kill,slaughter
s=s sis sis six
kh=k kha.t kor corpse khkh ku neck
sh=s ashai ase much,enough sh.t sã cent
Morphology Possessive adjectives t t your(feminine in Kmtic) s s (his/her) n n(our)
negation n nõ no
Syntax
Come to us wa n n vie a nu
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I totally disagree. Please present examples from totally unrelated languages that share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology and consonantal regularity. The support for this reality comes from the evidence of congruence between and within these languages in the areas of syntax, morphology, demonstratives and vocabulary illlustrated above.
Are native languages spoken in the Philippines/Romance languages and Kemetic "totally unrelated languages" to you? If yes I can assure you that those languages share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology as well as consonantal regularity, like those you provided above.
Perhaps you could provide us more examples illustrating your consonantal correspondances as well as some of their regular exceptions.It would be more convincing IMO.
Pax, can you please provide examples that demonstrate this point.
posted
You are wrong. Most of the French lexical items in your post do not agree with the French terms documented in most French Dictionaries.
English translations:
1. bush 2. ring 3. land 4. copulate 5. come to us 6. time 7. corpse 8. drink 9. head 10. much
Actual French terms
4. le copulate 3. de la terre 2. de l'anneau 8. du buisson 5. viennent à nous 9. la tête 1. des boissons 7. du cadavre 6. du temps 10. beaucoup
Where did you get the French terms listed in your post?
pax dahomensis quote: ________________________________________________________________ Here are a few: I know there are many of these french items that are not inherited from latin but I'm doing like Clyde Winters who doesn't judge necessary to consider earlier states of languages to compare them(may he correct me if I'm wrong).
Consonantal correspondances(Vocabulary):
kmt(b)=french(b) english ba.t boa bush bi.t abey bee
zero=r bâbâ boar drink ta ter land
n=n ân.t ano ring nk nike copulate
m=m mw.t mer mother mw mer water,sea
dj=t djadja tet head dj.t tã time,eternity adj.t tue kill,slaughter
s=s sis sis six
kh=k kha.t kor corpse khkh ku neck
sh=s ashai ase much,enough sh.t sã cent
Morphology Possessive adjectives t t your(feminine in Kmtic) s s (his/her) n n(our)
negation n nõ no
Syntax
Come to us wa n n vie a nu
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Supercar:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I totally disagree. Please present examples from totally unrelated languages that share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology and consonantal regularity. The support for this reality comes from the evidence of congruence between and within these languages in the areas of syntax, morphology, demonstratives and vocabulary illlustrated above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are native languages spoken in the Philippines/Romance languages and Kemetic "totally unrelated languages" to you? If yes I can assure you that those languages share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology as well as consonantal regularity, like those you provided above.
Perhaps you could provide us more examples illustrating your consonantal correspondances as well as some of their regular exceptions.It would be more convincing IMO. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pax, can you please provide examples that demonstrate this point.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis: Here are a few: I know there are many of these french items that are not inherited from latin but I'm doing like Clyde Winters who doesn't judge necessary to consider earlier states of languages to compare them(may he correct me if I'm wrong).
Consonantal correspondances(Vocabulary):
kmt(b)=french(b) english ba.t boa bush bi.t abey bee
zero=r bâbâ boar drink ta ter land
n=n ân.t ano ring nk nike copulate
m=m mw.t mer mother mw mer water,sea
dj=t djadja tet head dj.t tã time,eternity adj.t tue kill,slaughter
s=s sis sis six
kh=k kha.t kor corpse khkh ku neck
sh=s ashai ase much,enough sh.t sã cent
Morphology Possessive adjectives t t your(feminine in Kmtic) s s (his/her) n n(our)
negation n nõ no
Syntax
Come to us wa n n vie a nu
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis:
Are native languages spoken in the Philippines/Romance languages and Kemetic "totally unrelated languages" to you? If yes I can assure you that those languages share lexical items with similar meanings, syntax,morphology as well as consonantal regularity, like those you provided above.
Perhaps you could provide us more examples illustrating your consonantal correspondances as well as some of their regular exceptions.It would be more convincing IMO.
Pax, can you please provide examples that demonstrate this point.
Okay. But what about the Philippines/Romance correlations with Kemetic that you were referring to earlier?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You are wrong. Most of the French lexical items in your post do not agree with the French terms documented in most French Dictionaries.
English translations:
1. bush 2. ring 3. land 4. copulate 5. come to us 6. time 7. corpse 8. drink 9. head 10. much
Actual French terms
4. le copulate 3. de la terre 2. de l'anneau 8. du buisson 5. viennent à nous 9. la tête 1. des boissons 7. du cadavre 6. du temps 10. beaucoup
Where did you get the French terms listed in your post?
Actually I've tried to transcript French items phonetically in an "English way" to make them understandable to English speakers here regardless of their spelling since French spelling is almost always misleading vis à vis of its pronounciation(it is most of the time used to denote diachronic evolutions of the language).Since you only seem to care about the current aspect of African languages,(correct me if I'm wrong) I did the same with French.
quote:4. le copulate
"le copulate" is not a french word. We generally use the verb "copuler"(kopüle) to mean " to copulate" and "baiser"(bëzë) or "niquer"(nikë) to mean "to ****".
quote: de la terre
I used tër to mean "terre" because it is pronounced as such.
quote: de l'anneau
Same as above.
quote: du buisson
Buisson is a quasi-synonym of "brousse" and "bois" (boâ).
quote: viennent à nous
"viens à nous"(vïe~ a nu) is the same syntagm as the one above except that its is conjugated at the 3rd Person singular and at the imperative mode.
quote: la tête
Same as "terre" and "anneau".
quote: des boissons
"boisson(s)" is a noun while boire(boâr) is a verb just like the Egyptian bâbâ.
quote: du cadavre
The word "corps" is used to refer both to the body of living persons as well as well as corpses.
quote: du temps
Same as tër,etc.
quote: beaucoup
"asë" is used by French people to mean "enough".
Posts: 203 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar: Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was meaning similarities between Egyptian and Romance (or Philippines) languages. I could probably find such similarities between Philippine languages and English but I'll stick to that I have posted above since we are on an Ancient Egypt forum.
Posts: 203 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pax dahomensis ____________________________________________________________________ Supercar: Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was meaning similarities between Egyptian and Romance (or Philippines) languages. I could probably find such similarities between Philippine languages and English but I'll stick to that I have posted above since we are on an Ancient Egypt forum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi am sure you could find cognates given the fact that Spanish and English people have ruled the Island for hundreds of years.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
altakuri quote: _____________________________________________________________ I can't see how this list of eight unrelated words, they don't seem to be related cultural terms, serve as indicators of a recent (post 1000 CE, if judging by the place names) African (specifically Manding) migration to Pacifica. ____________________________________________________________________
What is your explanation for identical place names in Fiji and West Africa, if Africans didn't name these localities?
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much influence would the Sidi and Habish have had in introducing words into Indian languages?
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What is your explanation for identical place names in Fiji and West Africa, if Africans didn't name these localities? [/QB]
Homonyms? Has anyone verified the meanings and etymology of those similar words?
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
How much influence would the Sidi and Habish have had in introducing words into Indian languages? __________________________________________________________
The Sidis do not live in Tamil spaking areas.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
How much influence would the Sidi and Habish have had in introducing words into Indian languages? __________________________________________________________
The Sidis do not live in Tamil spaking areas. _________________
It should read: Sidis do not live in Tamil speaking areas.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither do Brits, but they speak English. Sidi populations exist all the way down in Karnataka and Andra Pradesh Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
sidi quote: _____________________________________________________________ Neither do Brits, but they speak English. Sidi populations exist all the way down in Karnataka and Andra Pradesh _____________________________________________________
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sidis do not speak Dravidian languages.
“The village of Jambur, Gujarat, deep in the Gir forest, is the site for one of two exclusively Siddi settlements. It is miserably poor. The headman explains that yes, everyone in Jambur is a Siddi. They speak the same Gujarati language and eat the same flavorful food as other villagers, but nevertheless stand out from their neighbors. The Siddis of Karnataka speak Konkani, the official language of Goa - indicating their Goan ( and hence Portuguese) connection.” http://www.colaco.net/1/siddhi0.htm
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't proposing they did, i wascurious how much their ancestrallanguages influenced the languages of those people they lived with.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic