posted
It has recently been proposed by several scholars/linguists that Semitic may have originated in East Africa and/or in the north eastern part of Egypt near Sinai, by proto-Afrasan or "pre-proto-Semitic" pre-agricultural migrants in the region...
“A careful reading of Diakonff shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively Africa origin for the family. He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non-food-producing vocabulary and links it to pre--Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the family wholly in Africa. One interpretation of the archaeological data supports a pre-food-producing population movement from Africa into the Levant, consistent with the linguistic arguments for a pre-Neolithic migration of pre-proto-Semitic speakers out of Africa via Sinai.” - Ehret et al.
What I hope to get out of any further insights, are the answers to the following...
If we agree that Semitic languages are Afrasan:
...then, does it follow that Semitic languages share ancestry with Afrasan languages?
Could Semitic languages have diverged from "proto-Afrasan" or"pre-proto-Semitic", OR, could Semitic languages have diverged from a pre-existing "descendant" of "proto-Afrasan" ["proto-Semitic"]?
Since there are a variety of Semitic languages, could these have descended from a COMMON "Afrasan" predecessor [proto-Semitic] that is not "proto-Afrasan", OR, could Semitic member languages have developed INDEPENDENTLY from one another out of various proto-Afrasan "descendant" languages, while sharing more affinities with one another than with other Afrasan languages?
Now of course, another viewpoint would be to separate Semitic from Afrasan languages; if so, what amount of evidence gives preponderance to this conclusion?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
It has recently been proposed by several scholars/linguists that Semitic may have originated in East Africa and/or in the north eastern part of Egypt near Sinai, by proto-Afrasan or "pre-proto-Semitic" pre-agricultural migrants in the region...
More excerpts on the matter:
Brandt, Steven. University of Florida and Juris Zarins, Southwest Missouri State University.
An African Origin for Semitic-Speaking Peoples? Archeological, Genetic and Linguistic Perspectives.
The origins of Semitic - speaking peoples have traditionally been linked to Near Eastern cultures that first occupied the lower Mesopotamian alluvium prior to 4000 BC. Drawing upon recent archeological, linguistic and genetic data, this paper develops an alternative model which suggests that Neolithic Afro-Asiatic speaking nomadic pastoralists from North-eastern Africa were the first to introduce “proto-Semitic” languages and an African form of nomadic pastoralism to Arabia, perhaps from multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea and Sinai. Implications of this model for clarifying long-standing issues related to the later prehistory and history of Northeastern Africa and Arabia are discussed.
posted
Perhaps a relatively more recent affair, but maybe intuitive:
"Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups had **already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabaean influences arrived.** " - Stuart Munro-Hay
My deductions: The Agaw adopted the Semitic languages from indigenous Semitic speaking Ethiopians, [and as stated above] not from southern Arabians. To support this fact, the author makes it quite blantant in the following, what language speakers the Agaw were prior to their adoption of the said Ethio-Semitic languages:
Whatever was the cause of the end of the former Aksumite kingdom, a new centre eventually appeared in the province of Lasta to the south under a dynasty, apparently of Cushitic (Agaw) origin, later regarded as usurpers, called the Zagwé (Taddesse Tamrat 1972: 53ff; Dictionary of Ethiopian Biography 1975: 200ff). The existence of a long and a short chronology for this dynasty indicates that the Ge`ez chroniclers were in some confusion as to the precise events occurring at the end of the `Aksumite' period until the advent of the Zagwé. - courtesy of S. Munro-Hay.
quote: Originally posted by Supercar: Since there are a variety of Semitic languages, could these have descended from a COMMON "Afrasan" predecessor [proto-Semitic] that is not "proto-Afrasan", OR, could Semitic member languages have developed INDEPENDENTLY from one another out of various proto-Afrasan "descendant" languages, while sharing more affinities with one another than with other Afrasan languages?
Now of course, another viewpoint would be to separate Semitic from Afrasan languages; if so, what amount of evidence gives preponderance to this conclusion?
I'm curious to know why Semitic is even still considered to be a linguistic branch while Hamitic was abandoned (done at the insistence of Joseph Greenberg that the concept of Hamitic languages were invalid).
It is my understanding that the language family Hamito-Semitic was abandoned in favor of Afro-Asiatic because the concept of Hamite implied a Mesopatamian/Near Eastern origin of various branches of that language family that were dispersed into Africa, as the Bibilical theory of the Table of Nations (from which the words Hamite and Semite are derived from) suggests.
Ofcourse archeological and linguistic evidence shows that it was the other was around, these languages in Africa once regarded as Hamitic originated in Africa and dispersed elsewhere.
So why is it that certain languages in Africa are considered to be part of the Semitic branch (and even proto-Semitic itself has been suggested to have originated in Africa) when the term itself still implies a West Asian origin?
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious to know why Semitic is even still considered to be a linguistic branch while Hamitic was abandoned (done at the insistence of Joseph Greenberg that the concept of Hamitic languages were invalid).
It is my understanding that the language family Hamito-Semitic was abandoned in favor of Afro-Asiatic because the concept of Hamite implied a Mesopatamian/Near Eastern origin of various branches of that language family that were dispersed into Africa, as the Bibilical theory of the Table of Nations (from which the words Hamite and Semite are derived from) suggests.
Ofcourse archeological and linguistic evidence shows that it was the other was around, these languages in Africa once regarded as Hamitic originated in Africa and dispersed elsewhere.
So why is it that certain languages in Africa are considered to be part of the Semitic branch (and even proto-Semitic itself has been suggested to have originated in Africa) when the term itself still implies a West Asian origin?
Mansa, you bring a good point to the table, as to the question of why "Hamito-Semitic" hasn't been dropped "altogether". Perhaps, the answer lies in the now outdated notion that, the "Hamitic" branch of languages were supposedly realized to have been of African origin before the same was realized for the supposed "Semitic" branch - something which Steven Brandt and Juris Zarins, for example, point out about the latter [Semitic] in the excerpt above.
Ehret thought even the term "Afro-Asiatic" was still reminiscent of the idea of African origin and an Asian offshoot, which according to his conclusions about exclusive African origins [for both proto-Afrasan AND its proto-Semitic descendant], did no justice to that conclusion. Thus, Ehret thought the term "Afrasan" would do it more justice, and get that "Asiatic" bit out of the way. But yes, Semitic too, as a term, may well need revision, with preponderance for African origins, especially in light of genetics, in combination with recent archeological findings - genetics wasn't exactly given much consideration back in the old "Hamito-Semitic" days, since very little was known about the science then.
Ps - For some, another reasoning for clinging onto that construct [i.e. Semitic] could be that, even though the "proto-Semitic" languages have African origins, their independent further development in the various respective regions where they are now spoken, would not be so apparent. But again, IMO, considering the history of that term, perhaps its further usage needs to be revised - how?...a question linguists will have to think about!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps, the answer lies in the now outdated notion that, the "Hamitic" branch of languages were supposedly realized to have been of African origin before the same was realized for the supposed "Semitic" branch
A part of it had to do with the bias implied in the elevation of the Semitic languages, among the most recently derived - why semitic, and not Chadic for instance?
Then the concept of Hamites as - black skinned whites - was acknowledged to be and essentially ideological ruse.
Supercar asks intelligent questions about the history of the semitic languages, none of which have easy answers.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ps - For some, another reasoning for clinging onto that construct [i.e. Semitic] could be that, even though the "proto-Semitic" languages have African origins, their independent further development in the various respective regions where they are now spoken, would not be so apparent. But again, IMO, considering the history of that term, perhaps its further usage needs to be revised - how?...a question linguists will have to think about! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the fact that the Semitic languages originated in Africa, in my upcoming book on Afrocentric linguistics and linguistic methods I call the Semitic languages Puntite, since many of the Puntites probably spoke Semitic languages.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The title is a bit misleading I think. There's no question that Semitic is Afrasan. In fact, it's one of the later language groups to branch of Afrasan. Omotic, which branched off the earliest in 13,000 BC (I might be off by a couple millenia, as I can't find my source right now) is still uncontestedly Afrasan, so why wouldn't Semitic be so as well?
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: The title is a bit misleading I think. There's no question that Semitic is Afrasan.
It isn't misleading, if you read the intro thread, and then deliver the answers for the outstanding questions therein.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since there are a variety of Semitic languages, could these have descended from a COMMON "Afrasan" predecessor [proto-Semitic] that is not "proto-Afrasan", OR, could Semitic member languages have developed INDEPENDENTLY from one another out of various proto-Afrasan "descendant" languages, while sharing more affinities with one another than with other Afrasan languages?
First of all you will have to understand that Proto-Semitic will be made up of the various Semitic languages; while Proto-Afrasan would be made up of the member languages in the alleged Afrasan family. As result, the Proto-language of both the Semitic family and Afrasan superfamily of languages would be different.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Supercar
quote: Since there are a variety of Semitic languages, could these have descended from a COMMON "Afrasan" predecessor [proto-Semitic] that is not "proto-Afrasan", OR, could Semitic member languages have developed INDEPENDENTLY from one another out of various proto-Afrasan "descendant" languages, while sharing more affinities with one another than with other Afrasan languages?
First of all you will have to understand that Proto-Semitic will be made up of the various Semitic languages; while Proto-Afrasan would be made up of the member languages in the alleged Afrasan family.
Okay? Proto-Afrasan, is the ancetral language, and Semitic is ultimately descendant language of this ancestral language; this has been noted. Now, how about answers the questions raised.
quote:Clyde: As result, the Proto-language of both the Semitic family and Afrasan superfamily of languages would be different.
I assume that you are stating that the proto-Semitic language is different from the proto-languages of other Afrasan languages. Did all Semitic languages diverge from a single proto-Semitic? If so, did this proto-Semitic die out? Do you consider proto-Semitic a descendent of proto-Afrasan? Basically, a repetition of questions asked earlier. Please refer to the intro posting, and deliver answers to the questions asked therein.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Supercar, you are responding to a guy who also claimed that Berber was not indigenous to Africa, but Europe and then later changed his theory to Yemeni origins!! LOLPosts: 26256 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I assume that you are stating that the proto-Semitic language is different from the proto-languages of other Afrasan languages.
Did all Semitic languages diverge from a single proto-Semitic? Theoretically yes. The Semitic languages are closely related and share a basic vacabulary used to form words.
If so, did this proto-Semitic die out? Proto-Semitic, would be a language that is reconstructed by linguists. Since the language has been reconstructed using Semitic terms, there is no real evidence that this proto-language was ever spoken by anyone. All proto-languages are languages reconstructed by linguists, and lack no real cognition to any ancient language.
Do you consider proto-Semitic a descendent of proto-Afrasan? No. Proto-Afrasan would be a language that was reconstructed using vocabulary items from all the languages in the Afrasan Superfamily of languages and since it was reconstructed using diverse vocabulary items Proto-Semitic can not be descendent from this proto-language, since it was reconstructed using only Semitic vocabulary items.
Basically, a repetition of questions asked earlier. Please refer to the intro posting, and deliver answers to the questions asked therein.
The answers to these questions are above.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Supercar questions:
I assume that you are stating that the proto-Semitic language is different from the proto-languages of other Afrasan languages.
Did all Semitic languages diverge from a single proto-Semitic? Theoretically yes. The Semitic languages are closely related and share a basic vacabulary used to form words.
If so, did this proto-Semitic die out? Proto-Semitic, would be a language that is reconstructed by linguists. Since the language has been reconstructed using Semitic terms, there is no real evidence that this proto-language was ever spoken by anyone. All proto-languages are languages reconstructed by linguists, and lack no real cognition to any ancient language.
...meaning, the relationships of "Semitic" languages, are just based certain similarities, and not on evidence that they actually diverged from a common ancestor - right?
quote:Clyde:
Do you consider proto-Semitic a descendent of proto-Afrasan? No. Proto-Afrasan would be a language that was reconstructed using vocabulary items from all the languages in the Afrasan Superfamily of languages and since it was reconstructed using diverse vocabulary items Proto-Semitic can not be descendent from this proto-language, since it was reconstructed using only Semitic vocabulary items.
...therefore, according to you, Semitic is not Afrasan? If so, what basis do you have, to suggest such a contradictory conclusion to the general viewpoint about Semitic being part of Afrasan, meaning off-shoot of proto-Afrasan?
See, Yom; now I hope you see why the title cannot be deemed misleading.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...therefore, according to you, Semitic is not Afrasan? If so, what basis do you have, to suggest such a contradictory conclusion to the general viewpoint about Semitic being part of Afrasan, meaning off-shoot of proto-Afrasan?
See, Yom; now I hope you see why the title cannot be deemed misleading.
I do not accept the view that the Afrasan languages exist. I believe that Semitic is just another Black African language.
Having said this, for those people who claim an Afrasan Superfamily of languages exist, Semitic would be a member of this Superfamily.
I believe the confusion is coming from the fact that Afrasan, is a term used to describe a Superfamily of languages, that include Berber, Egyptian, Hausa, Oromo, Semitic and etc. There was no Afrasan language per se, it is just the name applied to all of the above languages as a "family name".
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------Beja---Arabic-----Kabyle me----------->-i,<--->-o -ni:<-->-iyi you---------->-ok<--->-ka<------>-ik us----------->-on<--->-na:<----->-aγ you (pl.)---->-okn<-->-kum <---->-kən
(Beja, apparently, has no third person suffixes.) However, what really clinches it is the verbal system. Beja has two principal classes of verbs: one that often takes prefixes, and one that usually just takes suffixes. In Semitic, the prefixes are used for the imperfect, and the suffixes developed from a stative (still to be seen in Akkadian) into a perfect; Berber mostly retains the prefixes, whereas only minor traces of the suffixes remain. The prefixes are especially telling:
--------------Beja-----Arabic----Kabyle
I------------->a-<------>'a-<------> -γ you (m.)------>ti-, -a<-> ta-<-----> t- -o you (f.) ----->ti- -i<--> ta- -i:<-> t- -o he ----------->i-<------> ya-<-----> i- she----------->ti-<-----> ta-<-----> t- we------------>n-<------> na-<-----> n- you (pl.)----->ti- -na<-> ta- -u:na<->t- -m they---------->i- -na<--->ya- -u:na<->-n
I------------->-i<------>-tu<------>-o you (m.)------>-tia<---->-ta<------>-to you (f.)------>-tii<---->-ti<------>-to he------------>-i<------>-a<------->-:i she----------->-ti<----->-at<------>-to we------------>-ni<----->-na:<----->-no you (pl.)----->-tina<--->-tum<----->-ten they---------->-ina<---->-u:<------>-en, -ammi
Just for good measure, in the prefix verbs you also have a feature found in Akkadian (among other Semitic languages) and Berber but lost in Arabic: a present tense formed by doubling the middle radical (in Berber and Akkadian) or adding n before the middle radical (in Beja). Compare:
Beja aktim ("I arrived") > akanti:m ("I arrive")
Akkadian almad ("I learned") > alammad ("I am learning")*
WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ¬ the Mushabaeans? ¬ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Note: that in the highlighted piece, perhaps Ehret meant to say Proto-Afrasan?
Clyde: Your response to these?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^NOTHING, as usual (at least for now). LOL
Then he will come up with some rubbish in the form of his long length spam. Posts: 26256 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ¬ the Mushabaeans? ¬ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Note: that in the highlighted piece, perhaps Ehret meant to say Proto-Afrasan?
Clyde: Your response to these?
There is not much to say but that this is basically speculation. If you notice Ehret makes a lot of claims but he rarely if at all presents examples.
For example, he mentions the possibility of an Afrasan term for grind stone, yet he fails to provide a proto-form for the term. It is this failure to present examples that have led many researchers to question some of Ehret's conclusions.
Moreover, if you look at the Arabic and Tamasheq you will notice that the forms are almost identical. This indicates to me that this is a clear example of Semitic influence on a Berber language and support the Berber tradition of an origin in South Arabia.
There is not much to say but that this is basically speculation. If you notice Ehret makes a lot of claims but he rarely if at all presents examples.
For example, he mentions the possibility of an Afrasan term for grind stone, yet he fails to provide a proto-form for the term. It is this failure to present examples that have led many researchers to question some of Ehret's conclusions.
Lol. That was just an excerpt from an interview with Ehret. Ehret has made detailed analysis of Afrasan, if you care to avail yourself of his publications. Trust me, he is not just a talker.
quote:Clyde: Moreover, if you look at the Arabic and Tamasheq you will notice that the forms are almost identical. This indicates to me that this is a clear example of Semitic influence on a Berber language and support the Berber tradition of an origin in South Arabia.
The relationship shows precisely what mainstream linguists see: that "Berber" languages, in their own sub-category, are related to other Afrasan languages, as demonstrated by comparison here between a "Berber" language, Beja a relative of "Cushitic", and a "Semitic" language, all of which are off-shoots of proto-Afrasan. Hence, Semitic has to be related to Afrasan, which doesn't support your earlier claim about proto-Semitic not being a descendant of proto-Afrasan. The question boils down to, depending on what Afrasan language is being studied, when the said Afrasan language split from the predecessor Afrasan language.
I thought you said "Berber" languages were Indo-European. Are you retracting from that viewpoint?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I thought you said "Berber" languages were Indo-European. Are you retracting from that viewpoint?
I never said that Berber was an Indo-European language.
What I said was that their is evidence of a Germanic substratum in the Berber languages. Some of the Berber claim they came from Yemen, this is supported by some of the Berber languages.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic