quote:I check the literature and it appears that considerable research has been done regarding the Berber languages. The fact that they are considered to lack intelligibility suggest that they should probably be considered isolate languages
Many Bantu languages lack mutual intelligibility,
Too - different dialects of some languages [German, Mandarin] lack intelligibility, so I don't see your point.
Can you reference us to current linguist who holds your view that Berber language does not exist?
quote: was interesting to find in my reading that the Taureg language is related to the Songhay language. This fact alone, suggest that we may need to reclassify these languages
No, it doesn't. It only suggests that the Songhay and Taureg are related because they are both African languages, which makes good sense.
Are you ever going to give up the game of trying to use race to classify language?, which forces you to attempt to place the languages of Blacks in West Africa and South Asia into one catagory, while dividing African languages according to race?
I'm quite sure if the Nigerians were white he would have asked a reclassification of their languages and proposed these languages to be grouped with the Indo-European language family,lol. It seems skin colour is what guides his conclusions and not the languages themselves Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I resent this comment. I am not a racist. My research has been based on comparative linguistic methods used by other historical and comparative linguists. I invite you to present any evidence before this forum that I have made up any linguistic evidence I have ever published.
Moreover I want you to present to this forum where I have ever made a racist comment. You are the racist, not me.
rasol
quote: Many Bantu languages lack mutual intelligibility,
Too - different dialects of some languages [German, Mandarin] lack intelligibility, so I don't see your point.
Please post references that claim that there are Bantu languages that lack mutual intelligibility. The Bantu languages have mutual intelligibility, they are classified as Bantu because they have a common set of root that are joined with affixes to form words. For example, the root -tu, is joined to the prefix m, m-tu 'person' or u-tu 'manhood'. These roots can be modified by other prefixes, e.g., wa-tu 'people', ji-tu 'giant', ma-ji-tu 'giants'.
I have not studied German,so I can not comment on this language but you are wrong about Mandarin. Mandarin was the court language used by the Chinese, it is the language used for record keeping and etc. It was based on educated speech of the people in Peking/Beijing capital of China. This Chinese languages serves as a lingua franca, since there are many dialects of Chinese spoken in China. S. R.Ramsey, in The Languages of China, noted that "To be sure, it was useful to know modern Mandarin, Guanhua, since this "language of the officials" had served as an informal lingua franca since the fifteenth century, especially for administrative purposes" (pp.4-5).
quote:
Originally made by rasol
No, it doesn't. It only suggests that the Songhay and Taureg are related because they are both African languages, which makes good sense.
Are you ever going to give up the game of trying to use race to classify language?, which forces you to attempt to place the languages of Blacks in West Africa and South Asia into one catagory, while dividing African languages according to race?
It's simply prepostrous.
First of all I don't know where you get the idea I classify languages according to race. I classify languages based on the lexicon and grammar of the languages. Granted, if the comparison indicates a genetic relationship their may be a racial relationship, but not always.
The fact that Taureg and Songhay are closely related does suggest that its classification in the Berber group may be in correct. Later this year I hope to publish a book on Afrocentric linguistic methods that will discuss the relationship of the Egyptian and Black African languages, and the Dravido-African connection in addition to other topics. Now that I have read about the Taureg relationship to Songhay, I plan to examine this language and determine if it should be reclassified.
quote:The fact that Taureg and Songhay are closely related does suggest that its classification in the Berber group may be in correct.
No it does not, notwithstanding that you've escalated your rhetorical posturing from may be related to in fact closely related.
Hebrew and Kemetic can be shown to be related - which would not be surprising considering the history of the Hebrew peoples but that would not imply that Hebrew is not a semitic language, or course.
Likewise Xhosa is provably related to Khoisan language - this is because the Xhosa and San have a long history together - which includes both cultural and biological contract .... but no linguists claims that the affinity proves that Xhosa language is not Bantu, or that Khoisan and Bantu language families - therefore do not exist.
No disrespect, but what you are really shedding light here is the arbitrary nature of your own faulty methodology, and in passing, answering the question as to why your linguistic theories have not had success in peer review scholarship.
Typically less than flimsy trivia is used to claim that -
* South Chinese and Dravidians and Olmec are somehow all descendant from ancient saharans......but somehow Berber are 'not' .
And genetics are necessarily disregarded as they render the entire argument 'dead on arrival'.
If you can't perceive the self negating nature of your own thesis and are determined to dig your own rhetorical grave, then I guess we have to allow you to do so. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hebrew and Kemetic can be shown to be related - which would not be surprising considering the history of the Hebrew peoples but that would not prove that Hebrew is not a semitic language.
I would never claim that Hebrew is not a semitic language. I contend that the Aramaic, Canaanite, Akkadian and Ethiopian semitic languages should be classified as an African languages. In my work I refer to these languages as Puntite languages instead of Semitic since they were originally spoken by the people of Punt.
The fact that the Canaanites were classified as Cushites/Kushites according to the Biblical literature, make it clear that the speakers of these languages should be classed in the Black African family of languages. It is clear that modern Hebrew and Arabic has been influenced by non-Semitic speaking people.
The present speakers of Arabic and etc., are decendants of Gutians, who first adopted Sumerian when the Sumerians ruled Mesopotamia. They later began to speak Semitic languages after the Akkadians became the dominant group in the Middle East.
quote: Likewise it is possible for Xhosa to be Bantu, and yet relatd to Khoisan.
Is there any evidence of a Khoisan relationship to Bantu? From what I have read no such relationship exist. Are you talking about Xhosa loan words in Khoisan?
quote:Are you talking about Xhosa loan words in Khoisan?
No.
Some Bantu languages of South Africa have deeper structural similarites with Khoisan:
The Bantu languages are spoken in a large part of the southern half of Africa, but it is only in a southeastern group of them that the 'click' sounds are part of sound systems. Two of these languages that you are most likely to have heard of are Xhosa and Zulu, the largest and second-largest languages of South Africa, each with several million speakers.
You've probably never heard these click sounds, but take it on faith that the acoustic effect when they are spoken is odd indeed. It is as if along with the expected vowels and consonants you are continually hearing a 'popping' or 'clucking' that doesn't sound like consonants at all. What you are hearing is the formation of a tiny vacuum chamber in the mouth, followed by a sudden release producing the 'pop'.
A few details about what the speakers are doing. For one of the clicks, the back and the tip of the tongue are both pressed against the roof of the mouth, the tip against the upper teeth. The middle part of the tongue is lowered slightly, which creates that tiny vacuum. Then the front closure is released suddenly, a split second before the back one. Pop! Think of what you're doing when you say "tsk tsk!": you're pulling the tip of your tongue suddenly away from in back of the upper teeth, sucking in a minute amount of air. Not really the same, though analogous.
Nearly all the speech sounds in the languages around the world are some modification or interruption of the air stream coming from the lungs. But a few languages have speech sounds that linguists call extra-pulmonic, meaning simply that they are not part of this breath stream. Here the air stream is not coming out, but for a split second being sucked in. The Bantu clicks are not the only example of this, though by all odds the most famously exotic one - even among those who investigate languages as a profession.
To illustrate all this, let's look at just one language. We'll take Xhosa (Nelson Mandela's native language, by the way); Zulu is nearly the same. The Xhosa language has not just one click sound but no fewer than FIFTEEN of them. As a means of avoiding the typographical awkwardness of a lot of strange and uncommon symbols, Xhosa uses ordinary consonant letters for each of the fifteen. But remember, most of these letters do not have the value we commonly associate with them. There are three positions in the mouth (analogous to the way p, t and k indicate three different positions), and five types of sound:
VOICELESS c q x ASPIRATED ch qh xh VOICED gc gq gx PRENASAL nc nq nx PRENAS.VOIC. ngc ngq ngx Here are a few Xhosa words with click sounds -
What evidence do you have that the South Chinese are related to the Saharans? I have never seen this discussion of a South Chinese and Saharan relationship.
..
....
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Olmecs were Asiatics, probably Mongolians, who crossed the Alaskan land bridge and worked their way south. Check out Fahrenbach's book, 'Fire and Blood, the history of Mexico.' He goes into all of that in some detail.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Olmecs were Asiatics, probably Mongolians, who crossed the Alaskan land bridge and worked their way south. Check out Fahrenbach's book, 'Fire and Blood, the history of Mexico.' He goes into all of that in some detail.
Ha, ha, ha. Thanks for a laugh. I needed that!
Check out Leo Wiener's book: Africa and the Discovery of America; or my recent book: Clyde Winters, Atlantis in Mexico , http://lulu.com
, both these authors make it clear that the Olmec came from Africa , and the Olmec as evidenced by the Tuxtla, statuette used the Mande script to write their inscriptions.
posted
Thats all nonsense Clyde, no rational scholar accepts any of that. Provide me with a quote from any noted pre columbian Latin American scholar from a major university. You can skip the afrocentric sociologist types out to prove the world is black....give me legit, mainline stuff.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
What evidence do you have that the South Chinese are related to the Saharans? I have never seen this discussion of a South Chinese and Saharan relationship.
......
Perhaps you're being cute.
The Berber are native to the Sahara.
Chinese Dravidians and Olmec are not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Thats all nonsense Clyde, no rational scholar accepts any of that. Provide me with a quote from any noted pre columbian Latin American scholar from a major university. You can skip the afrocentric sociologist types out to prove the world is black....give me legit, mainline stuff.
Horemheb, bad scholarship is bad scholarship period. What Winters is advocating isn't “Afrocentrism”, bad Afrocentrism doesn't exist.
Posts: 2600 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rigaud, Thats the well all of this springs out of. It is a fradulent effort to attribute to Africa historical connections that did not exist. There is a distiction between a scholar of history and an afrocentric. Most of the people on this board are here to make a black political point. They go out an seek threads they can weave into a larger picture to make a case. Whether of not it is accurate is not particulary important. rasol and his effort to attach some sort of black componet to Greece is a classic example. He actually spun and entire history based on absolutely nothing substantial. Historians take their facts where they find them, afrocentrics find their 'facts' where they need them.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Rigaud, Thats the well all of this springs out of. It is a fradulent effort to attribute to Africa historical connections that did not exist. There is a distiction between a scholar of history and an afrocentric. Most of the people on this board are here to make a black political point. They go out an seek threads they can weave into a larger picture to make a case. Whether of not it is accurate is not particulary important. rasol and his effort to attach some sort of black componet to Greece is a classic example. He actually spun and entire history based on absolutely nothing substantial. Historians take their facts where they find them, afrocentrics find their 'facts' where they need them.
I haven't seen rasol ‘blacken’ Greece at all. At any rate, just because the precursors to European E3b and J2 lineages lie in the Middle East and East Africa doesn’t make them ‘black lineages’ by any stretch, just as most of the J-M267 lineages in Ethiopians are *NOT* ‘Arabian Caucasoid’ lineages. Lineages should not and are not “racial”, they simply provide us clues to population expansions and migrations.
Posts: 2600 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trust me , thats not his point at all. everything rasol and others do is racial, they are obsessed by race. Neither of the points you just made are established facts in themselves. We have a long way to go before we are able to deal with all of this data in a coherent manner but on this board "possibly" and "may have been" become established fact. problem is you do not find that linkage anywhere else.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Some Bantu languages of South Africa have deeper structural similarites with Khoisan:
The Bantu languages are spoken in a large part of the southern half of Africa, but it is only in a southeastern group of them that the 'click' sounds are part of sound systems. Two of these languages that you are most likely to have heard of are Xhosa and Zulu, the largest and second-largest languages of South Africa, each with several million speakers.
The appearence of clicks in Xhosa does not indicate structural influences. This only indicates that as a result of contact with click languages this phenomena has become a part of the Xhosa language, which like most Bantu languages is already a tonal language.
To see structural changes in Xhosa we would expect to see changes in the grammar and syntax of Xhosa speakers as result of their contact with the click languages. I do not see where this phenomena is mentioned in your text, or the original site from which the page you quoted cames from.
Language structure is a good way to identify the "deep" linguistic relationships between people who speak different languages For example, Afro- Americans speak English. Yet when we look at the deep structure of Afro- American speech we can observe that the grammar of Ebonics is analogous to the grammar of West African languages.
For example, in standard American English, we might say the following: SAE "Do you understand English"; in Ebonics 'D'ya dig black talk'; and in Wolof 'Dege nga Olof' ('Do you understand Wolof). In addition, both NK and Ebonics avoid consonant clusters:
SAE...............Ebonics
left..............lef
object............objek
fast..............fas
Both NK and Ebonics do not produce certain sounds not found in these languages and as a result we have absent phonics
As a result, we find that the structure of Ebonics is NK, while Afro-Americans use an English vocabulary. This deep structure of Ebonics betrays the African origin of Afro-American speech. Even though the lexical items used by Afro-Americans are English.
Commenting on this reality Dr. Ernie Smith noted " follows [that] the deep structure in every respect when it is different from English, and there is solid empirical linguistic evidence of identical deep structure or syntactical patterns in West African languages".
I am not claiming that the Ethio-Semitic and Akkadian speakers should be classified as African languages based on race I am look at the deep structure of the semitic languages.
For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl 'he kills'.
In Southwest Semitic, which include Arabic and Hebrew the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root. This results from the fact that the ancestor of the speakers of these languages spoke languages that had double consonants a feature unknown to most African languages that usually have a vowel following the consonant.
This evidence of different deep structure between Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic on the one hand, and Southwest Semitic on the other suggest that the ancestors of the speakers of these languages spoke two different languages, one related to Black African languages and the other non-Black African.
As you can see my proposal to include Ethio-Semitic into the Black African family of languages is based on linguistics.
.........
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol is a classic example that a little knowledge is dangerous. If he really understood genetics he would be out there making money with the information. What he does is spin, thats been pointed out already. Rasol feels intimidated by the "wst" as he calls it. This insane effort to spin history is simply a way to feel adequate. You'll note on the board that very few of these guys ever really discuss Egyptian history.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Fact is, the article from William Shetter documents greater specific affinity between Xhosa and Khoisan langauges than the majority of the examples you list - attempting to relate the languages of peoples strewn halfway round the world.
Did you know that even the name "Xhosa", is a Khoisan word meaning - angry, or angry men?
I would love to see you demonstrate how people in southEast Asia get their names from the Mandingo.
Can you show us this?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: rasol is a classic example that a little knowledge is dangerous. If he really understood genetics he would be out there making money with the information. What he does is spin, thats been pointed out already. Rasol feels intimidated by the "wst" as he calls it.
LOL It seems to me Hore, that YOU are much more intimidated by Africa and its history.
quote:..This insane effort to spin history is simply a way to feel adequate. You'll note on the board that very few of these guys ever really discuss Egyptian history.
LOL And calling Egyptian civilization which is in Africa, "caucasoid" isn't a spin?!!
At least Rasol presents evidence and FACTS whereas you present nothing as usual.
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another question I have is whether the Semitic languages of the southwest Asia had one or two origins.
The Natufians seem to support a northern entry of Semitic languages into the Levant, but there also seems to be evidence of a southern entry via Ethiopia into Yemen.
So if both entries took place, which one took place earlier?..
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whatever Clyde. That's why the academic community does not take you seriously. Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again I bring up the questions, since we have evidence of early Semitic speakers BOTH in Southern Arabia (i.e. Sabaeans) as well as in the Levant (i.e. Natufians) which entered Southwest Asia earliest; the Natufian immigrants of the Levant of those people of Yemen??
If we have evidence of early Semitic speakers in the northeast corner of the continent (Egypt) and in the Horn across from Yemen, is there evidence of Semitic speakers in the region between these areas??
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Again I bring up the questions, since we have evidence of early Semitic speakers BOTH in Southern Arabia (i.e. Sabaeans) as well as in the Levant (i.e. Natufians) which entered Southwest Asia earliest; the Natufian immigrants of the Levant of those people of Yemen??
We do not know what language the Natufians spoke. You can not tell a person's language from bones.
The earliest Sabaean inscriptions come from modern Ethiopia so these people originated in Africa, not Arabia.
The earliest evidence of possible Semitic speaking people come from Sumerian documents which record Akkadian names.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde said: The earliest Sabaean inscriptions come from modern Ethiopia so these people originated in Africa, not Arabia.
Whats happening Clyde.....Real quick, I acutually like the information that both you and Jehuti post. I hope ya'll will agree to disagree and yet together be seekers of truth......
Anyway, back to my question: can you post something about the earliest Sabaean inscriptions being in Ethiopia? If that is true, MAN, I can't wait to use THAT sword of truth, know what I mean?! Paz
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its already proven that the semitic tongue originated in Ethiopoia its kinda of weird that the only african country with its own alphabet is ethiopia everyother language either doesnt have a alphabet or it uses modern alphabets like for instance somalians using roman or Sudan using arabic. Ethiopic is a african writing system and a very high culture as well the ethiopian alphabet has like 200 letters each letter has 7 sounds and each sound has different forms. Ethiopian writing is found all over arabia especially in Yemen and the Hijaz but its not the arabs Yemen or Saudi who use these alphabets its only been used in ethiopia for a long long long time no one knows how long but it was being modified by the ethiopians from sabean to Geez. Babylonian is really close to the Oromo language. I think it is already proven that the afro-asiatic family language group originated in Ethiopia because u find all the Afro-asiatic groups all in Ethiopia.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
We do not know what language the Natufians spoke. You can not tell a person's language from bones.
I never said you could.
The hypothesis is merely implied from the fact that modern descendants of that area BOTH carry East African lineages (E3b1) AND speak Semitic (Afrasian) languages.
Of course such a theory with its evidences holds far more validity than your so-called Mande-Saharan derived Dravidian of India! LMAO
quote:The earliest Sabaean inscriptions come from modern Ethiopia so these people originated in Africa, not Arabia.
Never said otherwise! Did you read my post?
quote:The earliest evidence of possible Semitic speaking people come from Sumerian documents which record Akkadian names.
Correct, and all Sumerian documents show that they originated from the West-- i.e. the Levant.
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Its already proven that the semitic tongue originated in Ethiopoia its kinda of weird that the only african country with its own alphabet is ethiopia everyother language either doesnt have a alphabet or it uses modern alphabets like for instance somalians using roman or Sudan using arabic. Ethiopic is a african writing system and a very high culture as well the ethiopian alphabet has like 200 letters each letter has 7 sounds and each sound has different forms. Ethiopian writing is found all over arabia especially in Yemen and the Hijaz but its not the arabs Yemen or Saudi who use these alphabets its only been used in ethiopia for a long long long time no one knows how long but it was being modified by the ethiopians from sabean to Geez. Babylonian is really close to the Oromo language. I think it is already proven that the afro-asiatic family language group originated in Ethiopia because u find all the Afro-asiatic groups all in Ethiopia.
Hikuptah, you are correct about everything else except Ethiopia being the only one with an alphabet. There is still the Meroitic script of Sudan. And there are other native African scripts that haven't been fully assessed especially those in West Africa.
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Its already proven that the semitic tongue originated in Ethiopoia its kinda of weird that the only african country with its own alphabet is ethiopia everyother language either doesnt have a alphabet or it uses modern alphabets like for instance somalians using roman or Sudan using arabic. Ethiopic is a african writing system and a very high culture as well the ethiopian alphabet has like 200 letters each letter has 7 sounds and each sound has different forms. Ethiopian writing is found all over arabia especially in Yemen and the Hijaz but its not the arabs Yemen or Saudi who use these alphabets its only been used in ethiopia for a long long long time no one knows how long but it was being modified by the ethiopians from sabean to Geez. Babylonian is really close to the Oromo language. I think it is already proven that the afro-asiatic family language group originated in Ethiopia because u find all the Afro-asiatic groups all in Ethiopia. [/qb]
Hikuptah, you are correct about everything else except Ethiopia being the only one with an alphabet. There is still the Meroitic script of Sudan. And there are other native African scripts that haven't been fully assessed especially those in West Africa.
Does demotic count?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar i know already that there are other african alphabets but none of them are being used only the Ethiopian script. I only know one person who can decipher the Meroitic text and yes Demotic does count it is just some type of cursive i know there is some way to decipher the Meroitic text by maybe using the languages in the area of Northern Sudan i have heard that the language of Meroe was the language of the Beja people they say it is in the dialect of the Hedareb people there are alot of them in Northern ERitrea Southern Egypt and NorthEast Sudan close to the eRitrean border. Djehuti the other african alphabets that have not been assessed are they even used or known by the people or are they lost. I am talking about a african writing system that is in use till this day and the only one that is is the Ethiopic but im not saying that there is no other.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Supercar i know already that there are other african alphabets but none of them are being used only the Ethiopian script.
Does the Tuareg script qualify, as one being used?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know who the Tuareg are but what is there script called what do the alphabets look like do the have books written in this language and how old has this script been used and are they the only ones who use it.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is called Tifinagh, and based on the ancient "Berber" Saharan script. It has gone modifications through the ages, and is still used by Tuaregs.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know who the Tuareg are but what is there script called what do the alphabets look like do the have books written in this language and how old has this script been used and are they the only ones who use it
The script is called Tifnagh. Unfortunately, I don't know of any books written in it but Tamelsheq people mostly use it for love letters.
Man this is the same alphabets that they found in the Sinai it actually looks similar to Sabean or Meroe.
Don't know what you are getting at, but Tifinagh is based on old Saharan scripts, which some claim have been influenced possibly by Phoenician scripts, while others argue against such. In any case, it is unique and has been further developed through the ages. It is unique to the "Berber" speaking groups in the west African region, and is still being used.
Actually, Amharic alphabets are the ones that have been claimed by some to have been ultimately influenced by Sabean scripture. Sabean in turn, has been ultimately influenced by the likes of Phoenician scripts, which in turn has its influences from the Nile Valley. Do you see similarities between Amharic script and Tifinagh?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar of course i see similarities between it and Sabean i even see similarities between the sabean Tifnagh and there is another script they found in the sinai they thought it was sabean because it look identical to it but it wasnt. Supercar have u ever seen the hebrew Ethiopian/Sabean and Phoenician see them all side by side u will see alot of similarities.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Supercar of course i see similarities between it and Sabean i even see similarities between the sabean Tifnagh
I assume when you say "it" in the above, you are referring to Amharic letters.
I really don't see the resemblance in general, between Amharic and Tuareg Tifnagh or Sabean and Tifnagh. I do however see relatively more resemblance between Amharic letters and that of ancient Sabean script. But even the Amharic script is distinctive enough from ancient Sabean, since it has been further developed from the earlier script used in Abyssinia. Tifnagh's ancestral script may have had some Phoenician script "influence"; the idea of it "deriving" from Phoenician script is contested by some scholars, including those among "Berber" speakers. It is distinctive enough though, from Phoenician, since, like I said earlier, the Saharan script has undergone various modifications through the ages, to keep up with the times.
quote:Hikuptah:
..and there is another script they found in the sinai they thought it was sabean because it look identical to it but it wasnt. Supercar have u ever seen the hebrew Ethiopian/Sabean and Phoenician see them all side by side u will see alot of similarities.
In that Sabean ultimately derives from Phoenician, it is understandable that there will be some similarities here and there.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Supercar it means Tifnagh but if the sabean script which is Ethiopian in origin how can it be phoenician so the ethiopians are using phoenician script
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: No Supercar it means Tifnagh but if the sabean script which is Ethiopian in origin how can it be phoenician so the ethiopians are using phoenician script
It is said that Ethiopian script had been derived from Sabean, not the other way around. Sabean in turn, is supposed to have ultimately derived from Phoenician. But like I said, contemporary Amharic script is distinctive enough from from both its predecessor [despite similarities], and Sabean script; it has gone further development through the ages.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^If you can properly comprehend, you would know that the script IS Sabean but is ultimately derived from Phoenician script which itself is ultimately derived from proto-Sinaic script which was ultimately derived from early Egyptian!
So in the end, the script is ultimately African!
Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters. You might recall this web page. You had recommended I include Darius and the Behistun Trilingual Script. This post is only tangentially related to the discussion going on, though.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^If you can properly comprehend, you would know that the script IS Sabean but is ultimately derived from Phoenician script which itself is ultimately derived from proto-Sinaic script which was ultimately derived from early Egyptian!
So in the end, the script is ultimately African!
Such a mistake was only a lack of knowledge on my part.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Dr. Winters. You might recall this web page. You had recommended I include Darius and the Behistun Trilingual Script. This post is only tangentially related to the discussion going on, though.
Cuneiform was invented by Sumerians, NOT Semites. Sumerians and the early Semites were 2 different peoples.
I don't know where you are going with your claims but with that picture of the Bushman, I can guess. Posts: 26353 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I never said you could. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic