How so, the people of the Kerma culture and C-Group were likely Nilo-Saharan speakers, not Semitic speakers?
I believe the linguistic situation in this area was a little bit more complicated than a homeland for the Nilo-Saharan speakers, because it was in this area that the Niger-Congo languages oriignated as well.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Evergreen
quote:
How so, the people of the Kerma culture and C-Group were likely Nilo-Saharan speakers, not Semitic speakers?
I believe the linguistic situation in this area was a little bit more complicated than a homeland for the Nilo-Saharan speakers, because it was in this area that the Niger-Congo languages oriignated as well.
Niger-Congo originated in Cameroon.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Supercar, when you stated: "Or are you altogether suggesting that there was no 'proto-Semitic' language in the African Horn..." my assumption was that we were discussing the origin of proto-Semitic, not where it diffused to. Is this clear?
Nope; are you admitting that your earlier suggestion that "proto-Semitic" wasn't in Ethiopia was wrong? The wrong-doing here is on your end, not mine, as you seem to be 'trying' to rationalize. If and when you admit to your error, then the issue will become clear, is that clear to you?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I certianly believe that it is possible that proto-Semitic entered Ethiopia at a very early date and branched off into Ethio-Semitic. More research is called for. What I don't believe is in the diffusion of proto-Semitic from Ethiopia in SW Asia. There is no sound model in support of this concept.
There is no sound evidence of “proto-Semitic” diffusing from “SW Asia” into Ethiopia. There is evidence of the predecessor of Semitic diffusing from Africa into the Levant. There is evidence that Semitic is closer to certain Afrasan languages than other members, for example, closer to the likes of Egyptic, Beja, and “Berber” language groups, none of which exist in “SW Asia”. If this is so, it would imply some 'differentiation' occurred within the so-called "Proto-Afrasan" before it spread along the Nile and subsequently into the Levant, and also westward spread into North Africa. “Proto-Semitic” is a hypothetical language done by “reconstruction’ of established Semitic languages. If anything, there is more going for the establishment of “Proto-Semitic” in Africa, than in “SW Asia”. The point that “SW Asia” has the so-called “East” branch only tells us that, the “proto-Afrasan” language from which the ‘SW Asian” Semitic languages developed, another “Semitic” group branched from this.
Moreover, now that you've admitted that "proto-Semitic" would have indeed been in Ethiopia, from which the Ethio-Semitic languages would have developed, you have no evidence to suggest that this "proto-Semitic" language diffused from "SW Asia".
Have an idea:
Let's see if we can start reconstructing Ethio-Semitic languages, and those in "SW Asia", and determine, in which direction language diffusion occurred.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: [QUOTE]Do propose that Semitic languages entered Ethiopia in very early times when the language was still proto-Semitic, then? Or do you believe it entered Ethiopia as Ethio-Semitic or some other language (/family).
Evergreen Writes:
I certianly believe that it is possible that proto-Semitic entered Ethiopia at a very early date and branched off into Ethio-Semitic. More research is called for. What I don't believe is in the diffusion of proto-Semitic from Ethiopia in SW Asia. There is no sound model in support of this concept.
Since setting out the argument for Ethiopian Semitic Origins in Hudson 1977 & 1978, as just the reasonable weakest hypothesis of Semitic origins on the face of it in the absence of evidence for migrations, the only linguistic argument which I have sought to give is the archaicness of the ES A/B-type dichotomy, which I take to be attributable to Afroasiatic (Hudson 1979, 1991, 1994b). The absence of such a feature in Asian Semitic is evidence against the possibility of ES being a secondary population, from South Arabia, as late as the would-be migrations dates would allow, though I have not expressed this implication until 1994b. As for the possibility of migrations significantly earlier than the usually claimed dates, I argued from the first that this would be needlessly speculative theory, with nothing in its favor. In the BLS paper, a copy of which I have sent to you separately, I offer three reasons why migrations theory got so established (the third stated publicly for the first time)--(1) unreasonably persistent assumption of Arabic and Akkadian archaicness, (2) ignorance --if again unreasonably persistent-- of ES diversity (though knowledge of Amharic alone is perhaps sufficient), (3) racisim. [sic] I have argued the thesis negatively in a couple of papers: arguments against arguments which support or might support the old idea: Hudson 1981, 1988, 1994a.
Grover Hudson, personal communication.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Since setting out the argument for Ethiopian Semitic Origins in Hudson 1977 & 1978, as just the reasonable weakest hypothesis of Semitic origins on the face of it in the absence of evidence for migrations, the only linguistic argument which I have sought to give is the archaicness of the ES A/B-type dichotomy, which I take to be attributable to Afroasiatic (Hudson 1979, 1991, 1994b). The absence of such a feature in Asian Semitic is evidence against the possibility of ES being a secondary population, from South Arabia, as late as the would-be migrations dates would allow, though I have not expressed this implication until 1994b. As for the possibility of migrations significantly earlier than the usually claimed dates, I argued from the first that this would be needlessly speculative theory, with nothing in its favor. In the BLS paper, a copy of which I have sent to you separately, I offer three reasons why migrations theory got so established (the third stated publicly for the first time)--(1) unreasonably persistent assumption of Arabic and Akkadian archaicness, (2) ignorance --if again unreasonably persistent-- of ES diversity (though knowledge of Amharic alone is perhaps sufficient), (3) racisim. [sic] I have argued the thesis negatively in a couple of papers: arguments against arguments which support or might support the old idea: Hudson 1981, 1988, 1994a.
Grover Hudson, personal communication.
Is there any elaboration on this Ethio-Semitic A/B-type dichotomy, and when was this message relayed to you?
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Have an idea:
Let's see if we can start reconstructing Ethio-Semitic languages, and those in "SW Asia"...
Comparison of 'agropastoral' terms for instance, would be a good example.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wm. Welmers (1971) has postulated an original homeland for the Niger-Congo Superset in the general vicinity of the Upper Nile. The Niger-Congo speakers probably inhabited the plateau and mountain regions of the Sahara: Air, Ennedi, Tibesti and Hoggar.These highland areas eight thousand years ago formed the "Saharan Fertile Crescent". The linguistic evidence suggest that the Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Egyptian and other supersets and subsets of languages also lived in this highland paradise. Greenberg (1970) believes that during the Neolithic the Niger-Congo speakers had domesticated ovicaprids (sheep/goats). Winters (1986b) has illustrated that the Niger-Congo people utilized selected plant food including millet and rice . Contemporary linguists believe that Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo belong to the same family. Wasterman (1911) classified these languages as Sudanic. Gregersen (1972) called the group Kongo-Saharan. Bleanch called these languages Niger-Saharan.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Since setting out the argument for Ethiopian Semitic Origins in Hudson 1977 & 1978, as just the reasonable weakest hypothesis of Semitic origins on the face of it in the absence of evidence for migrations, the only linguistic argument which I have sought to give is the archaicness of the ES A/B-type dichotomy, which I take to be attributable to Afroasiatic (Hudson 1979, 1991, 1994b). The absence of such a feature in Asian Semitic is evidence against the possibility of ES being a secondary population, from South Arabia, as late as the would-be migrations dates would allow, though I have not expressed this implication until 1994b. As for the possibility of migrations significantly earlier than the usually claimed dates, I argued from the first that this would be needlessly speculative theory, with nothing in its favor. In the BLS paper, a copy of which I have sent to you separately, I offer three reasons why migrations theory got so established (the third stated publicly for the first time)--(1) unreasonably persistent assumption of Arabic and Akkadian archaicness, (2) ignorance --if again unreasonably persistent-- of ES diversity (though knowledge of Amharic alone is perhaps sufficient), (3) racisim. [sic] I have argued the thesis negatively in a couple of papers: arguments against arguments which support or might support the old idea: Hudson 1981, 1988, 1994a.
Grover Hudson, personal communication.
Is there any elaboration on this Ethio-Semitic A/B-type dichotomy, and when was this message relayed to you?
About 3 or 4 months ago. I don't have any more on A/B-type dichotomy from personal communication, but I could give you a number of works in which he addresses the matter and its archaic nature (and Akkadian cognate).
Here's some:
1979. Ethiopian B-type verbs. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies (Chicago), R. Hess, ed., 101-110. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
1991. A and B-type verbs in Ethiopian and Proto-Semitic. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, Alan S. Kaye, ed., 679-689. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
1994. A neglected Ethiopian contribution to Semitic and Afroasiatic reconstruction. Proceedings of the Twentieth Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 47-56. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
2005. Ethiopian Semitic Nonpast C2 Length, Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Florence, 2002) (Quaderni di Semitistica 25), Pelio Fronzaroli and Paolo Marrassini, eds., 195-213. Università di Firenze.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Have an idea:
Let's see if we can start reconstructing Ethio-Semitic languages, and those in "SW Asia"...
Comparison of 'agropastoral' terms for instance, would be a good example. [/QUOTE]
Note that some words may have agricultural meanings in some languages but not necessarily in others; cf. zr` (actually a complicated root, enmeshed with ḏr` and zr'), which can just mean "seed" or can have the meanings "sow" and "cultivation."
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yom and Dr. Winters. Don't mean to drift too far off the subject of the thread but I've been studying Nilo-Saharans lately to formulate a question for Rasol. Its been tough going so far but from my readings Blench (1995) has hypothesized that Niger-Congo is a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a joining node at the Central Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan.
quote:This paper argues that Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan are genetically related and should be regarded as a single macrophylum. The working hypothesis is that Niger-Congo should be classified as a single branch of Nilo-Saharan and that it is closest to Central Sudanic.
In the BLS paper, a copy of which I have sent to you separately, I offer three reasons why migrations theory got so established (the third stated publicly for the first time)--(1) unreasonably persistent assumption of Arabic and Akkadian archaicness, (2) ignorance --if again unreasonably persistent-- of ES diversity (though knowledge of Amharic alone is perhaps sufficient), (3) racisim. [sic] I have argued the thesis negatively in a couple of papers: arguments against arguments which support or might support the old idea: Hudson 1981, 1988, 1994a.
He is talking about the relationship between Akkadian and Arabic not ES and Akkadian.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yom and Dr. Winters. Don't mean to drift too far off the subject of the thread but I've been studying Nilo-Saharans lately to formulate a question for Rasol. Its been tough going so far but from my readings Blench (1995) has hypothesized that Niger-Congo is a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a joining node at the Central Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan.
Thanks for the article. You may interested in my comparison of Mande and Chadic terms at the following site:
quote:Its been tough going so far but from my readings Blench (1995) has hypothesized that Niger-Congo is a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a joining node at the Central Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan.
I'm no linguist. My humble opinion of languages is that inasmuch as they are cultural and not lineological, there are probably all kinds of non-linear relationships between languages in different families.
That's why it's possible on the one hand to dispute the existence of the established families or claim conversely relationships between languages oft. placed in different families.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Supercar, when you stated: "Or are you altogether suggesting that there was no 'proto-Semitic' language in the African Horn..." my assumption was that we were discussing the origin of proto-Semitic, not where it diffused to. Is this clear?
Nope; are you admitting that your earlier suggestion that "proto-Semitic" wasn't in Ethiopia was wrong? The wrong-doing here is on your end, not mine, as you seem to be 'trying' to rationalize. If and when you admit to your error, then the issue will become clear, is that clear to you?
Evergreen Writes:
Supercar, my 'error' is that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. As I have said at least three times in this thread I am discussing where proto-Semitic diffused from not where it diffused to. As I have said a number of times on this very thread, proto-Semitic may have diffused into Ethiopia via Yemen. Your comment regarding my "wrong-doing" further solidifies my comment earlier to your attempts to mischarectrize my intentions. I stated that I misunderstood what you were saying, you are implying more insidious motives. Intense debate is a good thing when it is done in a constructive manner. At some point one may cross the line and become a poor sport.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: [QUOTE]Since setting out the argument for Ethiopian Semitic Origins in Hudson 1977 & 1978, as just the reasonable weakest hypothesis of Semitic origins on the face of it in the absence of evidence for migrations, the only linguistic argument which I have sought to give is the archaicness of the ES A/B-type dichotomy, which I take to be attributable to Afroasiatic (Hudson 1979, 1991, 1994b). The absence of such a feature in Asian Semitic is evidence against the possibility of ES being a secondary population, from South Arabia, as late as the would-be migrations dates would allow, though I have not expressed this implication until 1994b. As for the possibility of migrations significantly earlier than the usually claimed dates, I argued from the first that this would be needlessly speculative theory, with nothing in its favor. In the BLS paper, a copy of which I have sent to you separately, I offer three reasons why migrations theory got so established (the third stated publicly for the first time)--(1) unreasonably persistent assumption of Arabic and Akkadian archaicness, (2) ignorance --if again unreasonably persistent-- of ES diversity (though knowledge of Amharic alone is perhaps sufficient), (3) racisim. [sic] I have argued the thesis negatively in a couple of papers: arguments against arguments which support or might support the old idea: Hudson 1981, 1988, 1994a.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]I'm no linguist. My humble opinion of languages is that inasmuch as they are cultural and not lineological, there are probably all kinds of non-linear relationships between languages in different families.
That's why it's possible on the one hand to dispute the existence of the established families or claim conversely a relationships between languages oft. placed in different families.
Evergreen Writes:
Interesting. A possible 'third way' is that Ethiopian Semitic is not Semitic at all, but a more archaic, unclassified Afro-Asiatic language with a large number of recent Semitic loan words. Just a thought....
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: Yom and Dr. Winters. Don't mean to drift too far off the subject of the thread but I've been studying Nilo-Saharans lately to formulate a question for Rasol. Its been tough going so far but from my readings Blench (1995) has hypothesized that Niger-Congo is a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a joining node at the Central Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan.
quote:This paper argues that Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan are genetically related and should be regarded as a single macrophylum. The working hypothesis is that Niger-Congo should be classified as a single branch of Nilo-Saharan and that it is closest to Central Sudanic.
Calypso, Niger-Saharan is a possibility, but the majority of linguists do not accept it. The Nilo-Saharan family still has yet to be explored, fully, anyway, and any reclassification would do well to wait until the family is better understood, as Nilo-Saharan is just as deep as Afro-Asiatic, yet without the benefit of having many of its branches written for millenia.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Interesting. A possible 'third way' is that Ethiopian Semitic is not Semitic at all, but a more archaic, unclassified Afro-Asiatic language with a large number of recent Semitic loan words. Just a thought....
If that were the case it would be pretty obvious. While there is some cushitic substratum in the modern languages (not really in Ge'ez, and none evident in the proto-Ge'ez used in D`mt), the languages are very obviously Semitic and not Cushitic with heavy Semitic loaning. Even the Gurage languages, with very heavy Sidama and other cushitic influences are clearly Semitic. Classification into a family is done based on the presence of (non-loan word) cognates with shared innovations, which are found in Ethiopian Semitic (innovations from Afro-Asiatic, that is, not from a putative West Semitic ancestor). Moreover, there would be evidence of the words being recent loans. Take for example the EthioSemitic word "Qemis." The word is clearly an Arabic loan, as the root is "QMS.," and "S." while pharyngealized in Arabic, is glottalized in South Semitic; if the word were cognate and not a loan word, it would have the form qVmVts (ts being a digraph, V = vowel).
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Niger-Saharan is a possibility, but the majority of linguists do not accept it. The Nilo-Saharan family still has yet to be explored, fully, anyway, and any reclassification would do well to wait until the family is better understood, as Nilo-Saharan is just as deep as Afro-Asiatic, yet without the benefit of having many of its branches written for millenia.
Yom, I agree that this hypothesis is not generally accepted.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If that were the case it would be pretty obvious. While there is some cushitic substratum in the modern languages (not really in Ge'ez, and none evident in the proto-Ge'ez used in D`mt), the languages are very obviously Semitic and not Cushitic with heavy Semitic loaning.
Yom what do you mean Proto-Ge'ez used in Diamat. The people of Diamat could not have employed Proto-Ge'ez, because a proto-language is a language which is reconstructed by linguist and left no evidence of its former existence.
As a result, if the people of Diamat wrote in Ge'ez, they wrote in Ge'ez and not proto-Ge'ez.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
Interesting. A possible 'third way' is that Ethiopian Semitic is not Semitic at all, but a more archaic, unclassified Afro-Asiatic language with a large number of recent Semitic loan words. Just a thought....
If that were the case it would be pretty obvious. While there is some cushitic substratum in the modern languages (not really in Ge'ez, and none evident in the proto-Ge'ez used in D`mt), the languages are very obviously Semitic and not Cushitic with heavy Semitic loaning. Even the Gurage languages, with very heavy Sidama and other cushitic influences are clearly Semitic.
Evergreen Writes:
You may be right, but I never claimed that the languages were Cushitic with Semitic loans. I purposed a more archaic, unclassified Afro-Asiatic language with a large number of recent Semitic loan words.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]There is no sound evidence of “proto-Semitic” diffusing from “SW Asia” into Ethiopia. There is evidence of the predecessor of Semitic diffusing from Africa into the Levant. There is evidence that Semitic is closer to certain Afrasan languages than other members, for example, closer to the likes of Egyptic, Beja, and “Berber” language groups, none of which exist in “SW Asia”. If this is so, it would imply some 'differentiation' occurred within the so-called "Proto-Afrasan" before it spread along the Nile and subsequently into the Levant, and also westward spread into North Africa.
Evergreen Writes:
I think you may have actually supported my hypothesis inadvertently. In that Egyptian, Beja and Berber are all found in NE Africa and not the Horn of Africa (like Ethio-Semitic) strongly supports my theory that proto-Semitic may have diverged in the Nile Delta/Palestine region. Again, least moves.....
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Supercar, my 'error' is that I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
You have not admitted to any error per se. You've been dancing around the issue, precisely because you knew what you meant when you initially posted your response. You knew that the idea of "proto-Semitic" in Ethiopia doesn't do much to support your claim that it diffused from Yemen, which you have still failed to prove. It doesn't take much effort to admit an error; you just come out and say it; you don't 'try' to say it. Got it!
quote:Evergreen:
As I have said at least three times in this thread I am discussing where proto-Semitic diffused from not where it diffused to. As I have said a number of times on this very thread, proto-Semitic may have diffused into Ethiopia via Yemen.
As I have said multiple times now, you haven't proven that 'proto-Semitic" diffused from Yemen to Ethiopia, as opposed to the other way around, i.e. the language developing in East Africa, and then moving onto the Levant. Your case has been full of holes.
quote:Evergreen:
Your comment regarding my "wrong-doing" further solidifies my comment earlier to your attempts to mischarectrize my intentions.
Your inability to answer my earlier question to you, as to in what way I had "mischaracterized" your intentions, tells us what about you? I mean, in terms of being honest? Let me yet refresh your memory, again...
I write:
What source is there for this, and are you suggesting that the African Horn had no mixed "economy" of agro-pastoralism prior to or during the existence of "Proto-Semitic" over there?
Or are you altogether suggesting that there was no "proto-Semitic" language in the African Horn, from which the Semitic languages distinct to that region developed?
Now, how does Evergreen react to this?...
Evergreen while citing me, replies with:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Or are you altogether suggesting that there was no "proto-Semitic" language in the African Horn...
Evergreen Writes:
I am suggesting juts that.
^^Now, I ask Evergreen once again.
How have you been 'mischaracterized'?
Who else other than Evergreen, doesn't understand this question, and can be confused about what it is explicitly stating?...
"Or are you altogether suggesting that there was **no "proto-Semitic" **language in the African Horn, **from which the Semitic languages distinct to that region developed**?"
quote:Evergreen:
I stated that I misunderstood what you were saying, you are implying more insidious motives.
When you speak of 'intentions' or 'motives, all I'd like to point out about this is that, your postings speak for themselves; I don't have to be a mind reader to know what they mean.
quote:Evergreen:
Intense debate is a good thing when it is done in a constructive manner. At some point one may cross the line and become a poor sport.
I agree; not answering questions posed to you, is not a good sport.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]You have not admitted to any error per se. You've been dancing around the issue, precisely because you knew what you meant when you initially posted your response.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, you are imputing my intentions to me instead of simply taking me at my word or asking for clarification. This is bad sportsmanship. In fact I often encourage my wife and children to focus on facts instead of feelings and what they think another person means. I have clarified my position to you several times.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE] You knew that the idea of "proto-Semitic" in Ethiopia doesn't do much to support your claim to it diffused from Yemen...
Evergreen Writes:
Supercar the emotional mind reader, at it again. Stick to the facts (that which is known).
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is no sound evidence of “proto-Semitic” diffusing from “SW Asia” into Ethiopia. There is evidence of the predecessor of Semitic diffusing from Africa into the Levant. There is evidence that Semitic is closer to certain Afrasan languages than other members, for example, closer to the likes of Egyptic, Beja, and “Berber” language groups, none of which exist in “SW Asia”. If this is so, it would imply some 'differentiation' occurred within the so-called "Proto-Afrasan" before it spread along the Nile and subsequently into the Levant, and also westward spread into North Africa.
Evergreen Writes:
I think you may have actually supported my hypothesis inadvertently. In that Egyptian, Beja and Berber are all found in NE Africa and not the Horn of Africa (like Ethio-Semitic) strongly supports my theory that proto-Semitic may have diverged in the Nile Delta/Palestine region. Again, least moves.....
You think I "inadvertently" supported you, because what you don't seem to understand, is that "Beja" groups are found in the African Horn. So language that diffused into the levant was an already "differentiated" so-called "Proto-Afrasan" language prior to moving out of the Nile Valley. This differentiation, based on Afrasan language groups in the African Horn, suggests that the language differentiation in the so-called "Proto-Afrasan" took place in the upper Nile, within the vicinity of Ethiopia. Hence, it is understandable that the "Proto-language" for Egyptic, Beja, and "Berber" groups, is what went onto the Levant, giving rise to the Semitic languages therein. The one that remained on the African continent, developed into Ethio-Semitic languages.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]As I have said multiple times now, you haven't proven that 'proto-Semitic" diffused from Yemen to Ethiopia, as opposed to the other way around, i.e. the language developing in East Africa, and then moving onto the Levant. Your case has been full of holes.
Evergreen Writes:
I agree with your assessment earlier in this thread : proto-Semitic diverged in NE Africa and nor the Horn as evidenced by its relation to Beja, Ancient Egyptian and Berber.
My case may be full of holes, in which case it is reasonable that I would bnring my case to this forum so that colectively we can fill-in the holes. You on the otherhand have no case (MODEL) at all. Your time is spent criticizing the intentions of others and asking questions that are redundant.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another possiblity that has been ignored in this thread is that Proto-Semitic spread to Asia from multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea.
-------------------- "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 Supercar: [QUOTE]How have you been 'mischaracterized'?
Who else other than Evergreen, doesn't understand this question, and can be confused about what it is explicitly stating?...
Evergreen Writes:
The point is I stated to you that I misunderstood your question and assumed we were discussing the point of origin of proto-Semitic. You continue to imply that it was no misunderstanding on my part and that my intentions were otherwise. This is what I mean when I say you mischaracterize my intentions. Either you take me at my word or you don't....
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
You have not admitted to any error per se. You've been dancing around the issue, precisely because you knew what you meant when you initially posted your response.
Evergreen Writes:
Again, you are imputing my intentions to me instead of simply taking me at my word or asking for clarification.
I have asked for clarification. I asked you to provide answers to the question specifically asking you to show how you were "mischaracterized", as you keep driveling about, but avoiding the simple question, which would undoubtedly put to rest, the shaky basis of your 'charges'. Feel free tell us anytime soon, why you can't answer that simple question.
quote:Evergreen:
This is bad sportsmanship.
Tell me, how your avoiding my questions, while my addressing yours, makes you a good sport, and me a bad one?
quote:Evergreen:
In fact I often encourage my wife and children to focus on facts instead of feelings and what they think another person means.
Then, it is high time you follow your own advice, and start focusing on fact-seeking, by actually answering questions, instead of convincing yourself of being able to 'read' people's emotions from behind your computer screen. Tell us, what can be made of your emotions, by the fact that you've evaded my question, but divert attention to what you think my 'emotions' might be? What does this say, about your 'emotions'?
quote:Evergreen:
I have clarified my position to you several times.
If you had, we would have already had an answer to my question to you.
quote:Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
You knew that the idea of "proto-Semitic" in Ethiopia doesn't do much to support your claim to it diffused from Yemen...
Evergreen Writes:
Supercar the emotional mind reader, at it again. Stick to the facts (that which is known).
Evergreen, who is the one who claims to know my 'emotions'; was that me or you? Who is the one, who hasn't answered the questions pertaining to the topic, but rants off about how someone else supposedly feels? Do you think it's about time that you feel that you are 'projecting'?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]When you speak of 'intentions' or 'motives, all I'd like to point out about this is that, your postings speak for themselves; I don't have to be a mind reader to know what they mean.
Evergreen Writes:
Supercar, my adivce to you is to ask specific questions and seek clarification before jumping to conclusions. Over the internet we lack non-verbal ques such as facial expressions, body postures and vocal tones. We don't even know the state of the person we are communicating with. Posters are scattered across the country and the world. Some are posting late at night and others early in the morning. I often post with one eye on my nine month old daughter crawling on the floor or my four year old son pulling his older sisters posters off the wall. So for the sake of civility, please seek clarification before making assumptions.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Of course, I do. I laid it out earlier. If you choose to ignore it, well then, that is on you.
quote:Evergreen:
Your time is spent criticizing the intentions of others and asking questions that are redundant.
The questions will become 'redundant' if you fail to answer them, only to see them come up yet again.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: When you speak of 'intentions' or 'motives, all I'd like to point out about this is that, your postings speak for themselves; I don't have to be a mind reader to know what they mean.
Evergreen Writes:
Supercar, my adivce to you is to ask specific questions and seek clarification before jumping to conclusions. Over the internet we lack non-verbal ques such as facial expressions, body postures and vocal tones. We don't even know the state of the person we are communicating with. Posters are scattered across the country and the world. Some are posting late at night and others early in the morning. I often post with one eye on my nine month old daughter crawling on the floor or my four year old son pulling his older sisters posters off the wall. So for the sake of civility, please seek clarification before making assumptions.
Now that you've talked about everything from your 'family' matters to your guesswork of "my emotions", Evergreen how about now addressing the actual topic, and find out that, if it weren't for your pointless ranting, you would have noticed that I've been repeatedly asking you to clarify how you were mischaracterized. Now that we know your 'family matters' is dandy, let's hope that you'll now address the issues at hand.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]You think I "inadvertently" supported you, because what you don't seem to understand, is that "Beja" groups are found in the African Horn.
Evergreen Writes:
The spread of Beja speakers reaches Eritria. Berber speakers and Ancient Egyptian was much further north. Neither of these languages is traditional to the Northern Horn or even the Sudan. Again the concept of least moves would place the point of origin for proto-Semitic in NE Africa or Palestine, not Eritria.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Another possiblity that has been ignored in this thread is that Proto-Semitic spread to Asia from multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea.
Evergreen Writes:
That's an interesting concept. Is it possible that Proto-Semitic diverged in this region and spread North along the Red Sea coast and south into Ethiopia?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]Of course, I do. I laid it out earlier. If you choose to ignore it, well then, that is on you.
Evergreen Writes:
I must have missed it. Please repost your model for analysis purposes. Thanks.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Another possiblity that has been ignored in this thread is that Proto-Semitic spread to Asia from multiple dispersal points along the Red Sea.
Evergreen Writes:
That's an interesting concept. Is it possible that Proto-Semitic diverged in this region and spread North along the Red Sea coast and south into Ethiopia?
Yes, but I don't have on hand a study that proposes this.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QUOTE]You think I "inadvertently" supported you, because what you don't seem to understand, is that "Beja" groups are found in the African Horn.
Evergreen Writes:
The spread of Beja speakers reaches Eritria. Berber speakers and Ancient Egyptian was much further north. Neither of these languages is traditional to the Northern Horn or even the Sudan. Again the concept of least moves would place the point of origin for proto-Semitic in NE Africa or Palestine, not Eritria.
Eritrea is in the Northern Horn of Africa. It didn't stretch to that region recently, but has a long-standing presence there, as evidenced by the inscriptions of Ezana (and continued early medieval presence as described by al-Ya`qubi). Also, keep in mind that Sudan is sometimes considered part of the Horn (esp. NE Sudan where Beja speakers live).
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yom and Dr. Winters. Don't mean to drift too far off the subject of the thread but I've been studying Nilo-Saharans lately to formulate a question for Rasol. Its been tough going so far but from my readings Blench (1995) has hypothesized that Niger-Congo is a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a joining node at the Central Sudanic branch of Nilo-Saharan.
Thanks for the article. You may interested in my comparison of Mande and Chadic terms at the following site:
Mande is a Niger-Congo language w/ Nilo-Saharan affinities, but why are you comparing it to Chadic, which is Afro-Asiatic and almost certainly not related to Mande (at least, not at any level that we can detect, relation past 10,000 years without records are impossible to determine).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Yom quuoting Hudson
quote:
In the BLS paper, a copy of which I have sent to you separately, I offer three reasons why migrations theory got so established (the third stated publicly for the first time)--(1) unreasonably persistent assumption of Arabic and Akkadian archaicness, (2) ignorance --if again unreasonably persistent-- of ES diversity (though knowledge of Amharic alone is perhaps sufficient), (3) racisim. [sic] I have argued the thesis negatively in a couple of papers: arguments against arguments which support or might support the old idea: Hudson 1981, 1988, 1994a.
He is talking about the relationship between Akkadian and Arabic not ES and Akkadian.
Yes, that's clear from the context. Archaism does not prove that the home of the family lies there, however.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Mande is a Niger-Congo language w/ Nilo-Saharan affinities, but why are you comparing it to Chadic, which is Afro-Asiatic and almost certainly not related to Mande (at least, not at any level that we can detect, relation past 10,000 years without records are impossible to determine).
This is not surprising, Homburger illustrated that the Mande languages are also related to Coptic.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beja speakers are all over Eritrea as i speak and understand Beja and have lived with them for so long and the majority of all the sections of Beja From Beni Amir Harendewa Tigre are all in Eritrea but the only ones that are in Egypt are Bisharin Amarar & Ababda neither of these are in Sudan but in Sudan there are Harendewa Beni Amir only there are no Amarar or Tigre but Eritrea has Amarar Harendewa Tigre Beni Amir-40 sections maily all sections are in Eritrea rather than Sudan & Egypt.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
You think I "inadvertently" supported you, because what you don't seem to understand, is that "Beja" groups are found in the African Horn
Evergreen Writes:
The spread of Beja speakers reaches Eritria. Berber speakers and Ancient Egyptian was much further north.
The Beja speakers are in the African Horn. In case you didn't notice, Eritrea was once part of Ethiopia.
quote:Evergreen:
Neither of these languages is traditional to the Northern Horn or even the Sudan.
What evidence do you have that the Beja groups who live in the African Horn, didn't come from the African Horn?
The Beja also live in Sudan, another fact that escaped your attention. You obviously have a lot to learn about Africa, my friend.
quote:Evergreen:
Again the concept of least moves would place the point of origin for proto-Semitic in NE Africa or Palestine, not Eritria.
So, now you've moved it from "SW Asia" to "North east" Africa. Interesting. The fact that Egyptic and Beja languages are found in the "Upper Nile" Valley, and not ['just', in the case of Egyptic] the Delta region, makes a mockery of your claim that the "proto-Semitic" language of Ethio-Semitic languages diffused from Yemen.
The fact that you keep claiming that "Proto-Afrasan" language made it into the Levant, without realizing that this was an already differentiated Afrasan language prior to its spread, compounds the problem with your 'viewpoint'.
You were reluctant earlier on to place 'proto-Semitic' in the African Horn; the fact that you are now distancing yourself from that viewpoint, is testament to a situation, wherein you have become awakened to the idea that "Ethio-Semitic" couldn't have diffused from Yemen into Ethiopia.
African origin of "Proto-Semitic" lends more support to the point that "Ethio-Semitic" languages developed in situ from a "Proto-Semitic" language that was on the continent all along, and didn't need to have diffused from "SW Asia". "SW Asia" is the region, which was on the receiving end of "proto-Semitic". The proto-language, which gave rise to "Semitic" languages in "SW Asia", is quite likely the same language that differentiated into Egyptic, "Berber" languages, and Beja language. The relative of this 'proto-language' gave rise to Cushitic and Chadic branches. This is likely why we see Egyptic, Beja, and "Berber" languages relatively closer to the Semitic groups, than these other Afrasan groups.
Ps - This was attributed to Ehret, by Wikipedia:
Tonal languages appear in the Omotic, Chadic, and South and East Cushitic branches of Afro-Asiatic, according to Ehret (1996). The Semitic, Berber, and Egyptian branches do not use tones phonemically.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Of course, I do. I laid it out earlier. If you choose to ignore it, well then, that is on you.
Evergreen Writes:
I must have missed it. Please repost your model for analysis purposes. Thanks.
Tough luck, because I won't be repeating myself, yet again. I suggest you browse through the topic. Thanx. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have only heard from studies that there appears to be a distant yet clear relation between Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic