posted
I would like to start a thread about the various genetic classifications of the Egyptian language (Pharaonic & Coptic), first dealing with that of Congolese Egyptologist Théophile OBENGA.
I have several problems with OBENGA's (TO) 1993 classification:
The conclusions of his work are the following.
The linguistic map of Africa can be separated in four families: -Négro-Egyptien (Niger Congo, Nilo Saharan, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian) -Ethio-Semitic (he doesn't consider Arabic to be native to Africa) -Berber -Khoisan
His argumentation is based on the following points; I am going to point out some things I disagree with:
1) Semitic, Berber & Egyptian aren't related to each other:
-TO Gives 25+ examples of elements of the basic vocabulary HE ARBITRARILY CHOSE which are said to be different in the three branches. Problem is that many of them can actually be found in those branches as show by several AA comparative studies, he would have known this he had done exhaustive research or wasn't biased.
-In the same vein, one could do the same with as much other basic vocabulary's words ONE ARBITRARILY CHOSE attested in Semitic, Berber & Egyptian yet TO doesn't mention them;
-Also to make -NC & NS look closer to Eg. than Sem & Ber, TO often restricts the semantic value of the words to the exact Egyptian one, while he sometimes uses a much (and sometimes ridiculously) larger semantic field to find his NC & NS cognates;
-TO "forgets" to mention several striking similarities between Eg., Ber. & Sem. For example the whole paradigm of "Old Perfective" which is used and identical in form and referent in Egyptian & Semitic is just ignored;
-He also gives only one Semitic form from only ONE lect out of all the Semitic and or Berber languages, while he compares Egyptian forms from the whole NC phylum, from West-Atlantic to Southern Bantu;
2)Egyptian is related to Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan:
-TO cites the personal pronouns of his "langues négro-africaines modernes" as a proof of their relationship with Egyptian. For example he points out that the third person pronouns are the same in Wolof, referring to it as a striking similarity, while the WHOLE Egyptian paradigm is paralleled in Berber and Semitic;
-His evidence, whether it is about lexicon, sound correspondences or grammar is never paradigmatic (i.e. presenting linked and mutually substituable elements in a regular way);
-Thus, his evidence, for example often based on monosyllabic examples (since he doesn't rely on systematic phonemic correspondences) doesn't differ than similarities that can be found in typologically related yet genetically unrelated languages, like languages favoring monosyllabic roots.
In conclusion, I would say that since TO doesn't provide any convincing (being possibly distinguishable of typological traits) evidence to show a relationship between Niger-Congo Nilo-Saharan & Egyptian, and fails at showing the unrelatedness of Semitic, Berber & Egyptian, his classification cannot be objectively accepted by any scholar aware of modern knowledge about genetic and typological linguistics, and African linguistics.
I'll deal with GREENBERG, DALBY & MUKAROVSKY's classifications later.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: I would like to start a thread about the various genetic classifications of the Egyptian language (Pharaonic & Coptic), first dealing with that of Congolese Egyptologist Théophile OBENGA.
I have several problems with OBENGA's (TO) 1993 classification:
The conclusions of his work are the following.
The linguistic map of Africa can be separated in four families: -Négro-Egyptien (Niger Congo, Nilo Saharan, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian) -Ethio-Semitic (he doesn't consider Arabic to be native to Africa) -Berber -Khoisan
His argumentation is based on the following points; I am going to point out some things I disagree with:
1) Semitic, Berber & Egyptian aren't related to each other:
-TO Gives 25+ examples of elements of the basic vocabulary HE ARBITRARILY CHOSE which are said to be different in the three branches. Problem is that many of them can actually be found in those branches as show by several AA comparative studies, he would have known this he had done exhaustive research or wasn't biased.
-In the same vein, one could do the same with as much other basic vocabulary's words ONE ARBITRARILY CHOSE attested in Semitic, Berber & Egyptian yet TO doesn't mention them;
-Also to make -NC & NS look closer to Eg. than Sem & Ber, TO often restricts the semantic value of the words to the exact Egyptian one, while he sometimes uses a much (and sometimes ridiculously) larger semantic field to find his NC & NS cognates;
-TO "forgets" to mention several striking similarities between Eg., Ber. & Sem. For example the whole paradigm of "Old Perfective" which is used and identical in form and referent in Egyptian & Semitic is just ignored;
-He also gives only one Semitic form from only ONE lect out of all the Semitic and or Berber languages, while he compares Egyptian forms from the whole NC phylum, from West-Atlantic to Southern Bantu;
2)Egyptian is related to Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan:
-TO cites the personal pronouns of his "langues négro-africaines modernes" as a proof of their relationship with Egyptian. For example he points out that the third person pronouns are the same in Wolof, referring to it as a striking similarity, while the WHOLE Egyptian paradigm is paralleled in Berber and Semitic;
-His evidence, whether it is about lexicon, sound correspondences or grammar is never paradigmatic (i.e. presenting linked and mutually substituable elements in a regular way);
-Thus, his evidence, for example often based on monosyllabic examples (since he doesn't rely on systematic phonemic correspondences) doesn't differ than similarities that can be found in typologically related yet genetically unrelated languages, like languages favoring monosyllabic roots.
In conclusion, I would say that since TO doesn't provide any convincing (being possibly distinguishable of typological traits) evidence to show a relationship between Niger-Congo Nilo-Saharan & Egyptian, and fails at showing the unrelatedness of Semitic, Berber & Egyptian, his classification cannot be objectively accepted by any scholar aware of modern knowledge about genetic and typological linguistics, and African linguistics.
I'll deal with GREENBERG, DALBY & MUKAROVSKY's classifications later.
posted
^ All this is not surprising at all. And judging by such gross inconsistencies in Obenga's studies there was apparent bias involved. Obviously Obenga saw the definitely closely related Berber and Semitic languages as non-African or having originated among non-black peoples...
Notice how all the poster who cling to his work are silent (Clyde and Kemson). Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If we let go of the need to make language groups concordant with race groups, the problem evaporates.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ All this is not surprising at all. And judging by such gross inconsistencies in Obenga's studies there was apparent bias involved. Obviously Obenga saw the definitely closely related Berber and Semitic languages as non-African or having originated among non-black peoples...
Notice how all the poster who cling to his work are silent (Clyde and Kemson).
There is no need to comment. The poster has provided no linguistic examples disputing Obenga or Diop's work. The poster is making noise, and noise is worthless.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is no need to comment. The poster has provided no examples linguistic examples disputing Obenga or Diop's work. The poster is making noise, and noise is worthless.
Couldn't have said it better myself. In extension of the perfect quote, one of the hallmark and required practices in presenting an objective hypothesis is to be detailed to back up ones hypothesis/theory. This lack of demonstration while writing things like "Notice how all the poster who cling to his work are silent (Clyde and Kemson)." is more like intellectual "destruction" as oppose to "elegant deconstruction". The poster didn't point to any specific areas with flaws in Theophile Obenga or Cheikh Anta Diop's excellent linguistic works to deconstruct anything.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:one of the hallmark and required practices in presenting an objective hypothesis is to be detailed to back up ones hypothesis/theory.
^ Something you've never done, in spite of repeated requests. You can't even answer simple questions. All you ever do is attempt to distract or silence by shouting other people down.
You can only be Lion(!), Dr. Winters yelping attack poodle.
The more frightened you get, the louder you yelp.
One of the nice things about Midogbe's post is that he promises to expand on it.....let's allow him to do so.
This means put the quietus on your yelping. Thank you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, the more I read your rediculous, almost amusing comments, the more sighs of sorrow exhales from my breath. But I can only help you by pointing out your flaws.
Rhetorics you post such as:
"The more frightened you get, the louder you yelp."
bring absolutely nothing to the table of subject(s) in focus.
In another quote you write:
"One of the nice things about Midogbe's post is that he promises to expand on it.....let's allow him to do so."
Maybe you should've allowed him (MIDOGBE) to expand on his objective hypothesis before claiming "Elegant deconstruction". I want to believe what you meant was "Elegant introduction" because nothing was deconstructed since nothing was expanded.
Dr. Winters, just like many bright people on this forum, happened to make a short, simple, yet important, but generic point, hence by 'generic' can be used in any academic area; Yet you attack me (with a smile?) by calling me "Dr. Winters yelping attack poodle" for briefly supporting Dr. Winters point. How does your childish name calling contribute to "...MIDOGBE's" soon to be demonstrated hypothesis?
Not that you’re required to answer these questions, since we’re all waiting for MIDOGBE's demonstrations, but it really baffle me to witness such level of "intelligent stupidity" (stupidity by choice) which renders the projector as un-refined, almost amateurish, in some basic logic.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Is Rasol's guess true, that you Kemson are really Lion'!'?
Speculations aside, Rasol is correct that all you ever do (like Lion) is act like Clyde's loyal fan never contributing anything but cheerleading for your idol. You also display a great reverence for Obenga and Diop supporting everything they say when obviously not all of their works are accurate.
You deny what Midogbe's criticism of Obenga, when it makes perfect sense considering the all linguistics show a close genetic relation between Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic. Of course Obenga's critque hasn't provided specific examples yet, but what will you do when he does? Will you "yelp even louder"? LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You deny what Midogbe's criticism of Obenga, when it makes perfect sense considering the all linguistics show a close genetic relation between Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic. Of course Obenga's critque hasn't provided specific examples yet, but what will you do when he does? Will you "yelp even louder"? LOL
That's exactly why Lion(?)Kemson focus on yelping rather than asking questions.
They really don't want Midogbe to respond. They are hoping he won't in fact. Hence the focus on 'poodle-attacks' in the futile hope of chasing away the bearer of bad news.
Midogbe has stated the thesis will continue.
Nither Winters nor his rapid attack poodle have questions to ask...therefore civility requires them to wait...and listen. Unless, of course, they are afraid of what they might hear, and might not be able to refute.
Why don't you point out specific contentions of Diop and Obenga that are not accurate.
Well for one thing, what this thread entails-- that non of the valid linguistic classifications of Africa don't exist, let alone Afro-asiatic, and that the various 'Berber' languages and Semitic languages are not of black African origin.
Two other inaccuracies that Diop made was to say Dravidians Indians are Africans using the Eurocentric racial typology of "negroid", just because their black and their culture holds certain similarities. Of course YOU still persue this fictional notion as 'fact'. Diop also made the claim that so-called 'mongoloid' Asians are the result of hybridization between "negroids and caucasoids". All of which are debunked claims of the past that you seem desperated to hold on to.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Two other inaccuracies that Diop made was to say Dravidians Indians are Africans using the Eurocentric racial typology of "negroid", just because their black and their culture holds certain similarities.
I think the racial typology used by Diop, which you are misinterpreting as "inaccuracies" is actually a powerful writing technique. A sort of "here's where you are map" metaphor used in writing by Diop. Meaning, where you, the read are and condition by, is the dominating "Eurocentric racial typology". Diop had to write from this point to stimulate the readers thoughts and secure their attention. In addition, Cheikh Diop and Dr. Théophile OBENGA's were far more accomplished and attained multi-disciplinary capabilities surpassing their European counterparts further making their well-backed hypothesis difficult to shake. Black African scholars with Linguistic skills can easily dismiss erroneous works by European specialist with accuracy. Not to burst anyone's bubbles, but in some ways challenging them is like a perfect vertical mountain climb with no rope.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone here get the impression or notion that there is an underlying theme here:
European scholars are scientifically objective, accurate, and are not to be disputed, and...
African scholars are biased, have an agenda, and are constantly outdated!
What rubbish!
Greenberg, or is it Rosenberg, knows more about African languages than any African scholar???
A correction, by example: Diop NEVER said that Asians (Mongoloids) were the result of the mixing of Africans(Negroes) and Europeans(Whites); it was in a footnote that he posited the question that perhaps through a process of filiation that it might be possible that this mixing might have resulted in the 'Mongoloid' race; he never stated this as a fact! .... Kemson, you're right on the money! Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone here get the impression or notion that there is an underlying theme here:
European scholars are scientifically objective, accurate, and are not to be disputed, and...
I feel much the same, but you're playing into that, if you defend Obenga because of his ethnicity or attack anyone else because of same.
In fact, your post was essentially and 'appeal to ethnicity' logical fallacy.
In no way did you invalidate the Afrisan language family, or support a "negro african' language family.
Have to rise above, otherwise you aren't doing them a favor you're disrespecting them.
This is something Lion(?) never undertood [or ever will understand] visa his hero Dr. Winters.
quote:African scholars are biased, have an agenda, and are constantly outdated!
What rubbish!
Rather than holla 'rubbish', I quote Keita and Kittles modern African expert scholars in their field.
Unfortunately, I've found many African students unprepared to learn what these scientists have to offer. So they end up talking about the sunken continent of Lemuria and other nonsense instead. Whose fault is that Wally?
The lesson for all of us I think is to master modern science, just as Diop did. But quoting Diop is not a substitute for understanding modern science. The issue is not what Diop knew it's what you know.
Now here is a practical example of what I'm talking about:
quote:Diop NEVER said that Asians (Mongoloids) were the result of the mixing of Africans(Negroes) and Europeans(Whites);
The question is not what Diop did or did not say:
The question is - do *you*understand that there is no such thing in science as Mongoloid race, a Negro race or a Caucasian race?
[^ i don't expect you to answer btw, and that's a part of the problem]
If you don't, then you don't understand modern anthropology.
If such is the case, then the manner in which you quote Diop to bolster your own outdated concepts - debases Diop, and doesn't help you.
In short: In this way, we make the attacks against African scholarship - as biased, shoddy, and anti-scientific *easy*, by playing right into it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why don't you point out specific contentions of Diop and Obenga that are not accurate.
Well for one thing, what this thread entails-- that non of the valid linguistic classifications of Africa don't exist, let alone Afro-asiatic, and that the various 'Berber' languages and Semitic languages are not of black African origin.
Two other inaccuracies that Diop made was to say Dravidians Indians are Africans using the Eurocentric racial typology of "negroid", just because their black and their culture holds certain similarities. Of course YOU still persue this fictional notion as 'fact'. Diop also made the claim that so-called 'mongoloid' Asians are the result of hybridization between "negroids and caucasoids". All of which are debunked claims of the past that you seem desperated to hold on to.
Where's the beef??? You have made several statements but you have not provided any linguistic evidence disputing Diop and Obenga's work. This shows that you are just a troll.
posted
^ My response was to Wally in reference to criticism of Diop's ideas on anthropology [science], not linguistics, however you are correct that we should keep the subject on topic.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My speed typing errors irritates me...ignore them. I'm working hard on it, corrected version below:
I think the racial typology used by Diop, which you are misinterpreting as "inaccuracies" is actually a powerful writing technique. A sort of "here's where you are map" metaphor used in writing by Diop; Meaning, where you are, the reader and condition by, is the dominating "Eurocentric racial typology". Diop had to write from this point to stimulate the readers’ thoughts and secure their attention. In addition, Cheikh Diop and Dr. Théophile OBENGA's were far more accomplished and attained multi-disciplinary capabilities surpassing their European counterparts further making their well-backed hypothesis difficult to shake. Black African scholars with Linguistic skills can easily dismiss erroneous works by European specialists with accuracy. Not to burst anyone's bubbles, but in some ways challenging African scholars of this level is like climbing a perfect vertical mountain without a rope.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: posted by rasol: If such is the case, then the manner in which you quote Diop to bolster your own outdated concepts - debases Diop, and doesn't help you.
In short: In this way, we make the attacks against African scholarship - as biased, shoddy, and anti-scientific *easy*, by playing right into it.
You see exactly what I mean Kemson! You keep thinking for yourself; this new "European science" is a trap, just pay attention. Most intelligent Africans here are doing just that...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We, the undersigned, propose that Dr. Rick Kittles be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for his profound contribution to the field of genetic research.
Dr. Kittles, a 40-year-old geneticist descended from enslaved Africans, has earned this recognition for his original DNA research and analysis that is repairing the effects of 450 years of slavery related genocide against people of African descent. His genetic research has the ability to unite people in one of the most critical ways known to man -- the basis of shared ethnic and national identity. Prior to his work, this was impossible for the billions of descendants of enslaved Africans living in the Diaspora.
For his part in unlocking the "door of no return" for so many, and for creating the scientific method to undo the effects of ethnic cleansing committed by so many nations against people of African descent, Dr. Kittles deserves the Nobel Prize -- one of the greatest honors and recognition the world has to offer.
^ African science didn't stop with Diop. Science is neverending....the pity is that some people chose to *stop learning*.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: posted by rasol: If such is the case, then the manner in which you quote Diop to bolster your own outdated concepts - debases Diop, and doesn't help you.
In short: In this way, we make the attacks against African scholarship - as biased, shoddy, and anti-scientific *easy*, by playing right into it.
You see exactly what I mean Kemson! You keep thinking for yourself; this new "European science" is a trap, just pay attention. Most intelligent Africans here are doing just that...
Rasols quote makes absolutely nonsense in actuality. But in attempt, it makes perfect sense. This is a classical, final European psychological push when all others have been exhausted. I call it Counter-Intellectual-Countering. His use of Diop to falsely accuse anyone of “outdated concepts” without demonstrating any details of what these concepts are and then using that same person he just falsely accused against Diop (as he says "debases Diop") is a simple attempt in trying to kill two birds with one stone. My grandmother used to say (in her Igbo tongue) “when a liar can’t hide one truth but attempts to hide two, he is beyond a fool who’s caught and doesn’t even know it yet.” This African moral parable completely describes rasol’s entire psychological state of mind while he wrote those comments. But at least, he now knows he’s been caught and that is better than not knowing at all.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:His use of Diop to falsely accuse anyone of “outdated concepts”
^ Classic straw man argument.
Anyone who actually bothers to read this thread will know who cynically dragged Diop into this conversation in order to *hide* behind him...
Why, it was your hero, Dr. Winters of course.
He always tries to make Diop the martyr for any ridiculous proposition that he can in no honorable way defend.
Who then makes the 2nd desparate reference to Diop in this thread?
Why....it was *you*, naturally.
It's a shamefully transparent and low tactic [you think we didn't notice it?], and you're still using it even now.
But, it isn't working, and wouldn't work on any audience of normal intelligence.
My question has nothing to do with Diop, is put directly to you.....
quote:
The issue is not what Diop knew it's what you know.
The question is - do *you*understand that there is no such thing in science as Mongoloid race, a Negro race or a Caucasian race?
[^ i don't expect you to answer btw, and that's a part of the problem]
^ You may prove me wrong, by actually answering a question, or presenting evidence.
Or...you can keep emoting petty ethnocentric arguments and using Diop as cowards-crutch for everything *you* don't understand and refuse to learn. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ...^ African science didn't stop with Diop. Science is neverending....the pity is that some people chose to *stop learning*.
African science didn't stop with Diop, it was stregnthened and in many way revitalized by his work. You even prove this by your post regarding Dr. Kittles. In addition to Dr. Kettle you have others who continue the fine very Ancient African tradition of amazine science. Like Dr. Emeagwali who received an award in 1989 and many more after, for producing the world’s fastest computer. Who I believe now works for Los Almos Laboratories or something. Or Mark Dean, dubbed "America's invisible hightech man" (I wonder why? ), who hold three of the original nine patents for the IBM compatible PC design as chief engineer working with IBM personal computers. How significant was his invention? his one invention, the ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) permitted multiple devices to be connected to a computers mainboard allowing the mouse, printer, video card, keyboard…etc all to be used at the same time forming the foundation of every modern computer in use today (from PC's, Macs to Supercomputers). Not to mention Marc Hannah, co-founder SGI, principal scientist and chief architect of many video systems some of you have heard of or even used. Or John Henry Thompson (known as the father of Lingo), who held the highest position as Chief Scientist, invented the Lingo computer language as well as the chief architect behind the Macromedia Director software authoring package and Macromedia’s Shockwave playback technologies. Interestingly, John Henry Thompson named his sons Nile and Pharoah.
So African science didn’t and hasn’t ended with Diop and will not. I think you want Africans to cease referencing the likes of Diop, Obenga or even Nana Banchie Darkwah (author of “Africans who wrote the bible”) and others like them as to carve a loophole allowing further Eurocentric nonsense and lies about the abilities of Black Africans to be spread. All children in schools should know about these people before the age 10 but their information is purposely not made available. I wonder why? )
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ...^ African science didn't stop with Diop. Science is neverending....the pity is that some people chose to *stop learning*.
quote:African science didn't stop with Diop
I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to 'echo' what I just said? Unless this is your way of admitting that you agree, while not losing face?
quote:, it was stregnthened and in many way revitalized by his work. You even prove this by your post regarding Dr. Kittles.
That was the point of quoting him.
I think you and Wally are so used to arguing by -emotion - that you don't actually even bother to listen to what is said.
Kittles is a geneticist.
Now go back and read my post again, and see if you can't the point without my having to spell it out.
I notice Wally still hasn't figured out how to bail himself out of his big foot-in-mouth, referring to genetics as "European science".
posted
Whatever dude, checkout the links I posted and stop hating. While we spend time checking out the links, it will give MIDOGBE even more time to provide his detailed hypothesis of his objection to Obenga and/or Diop. Afterall, we don't want to lose sight of such expectations do we?
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
2.) Your links also don't answer my questions, or support your claims, they simply provide a channel for your strawfire distractions [how you keep replying but never with answers].
3.) I don't hate.
4.) The only hate comes by way of your poodle attacks, but they are so weak as to be 'cute', so.... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's be fair and give MIDOGBE time to provide his detailed objective hypothesis. As we wait, the links I've posted allows us to positively pass time. Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
The initial point of this thread was to give my opinions on the various classifications of Egyptian, not to demonstrate it in detail here, but still, here are examples of my points...
I would like to start a thread about the various genetic classifications of the Egyptian language (Pharaonic & Coptic), first dealing with that of Congolese Egyptologist Théophile OBENGA.
I have several problems with OBENGA's (TO) 1993 classification:
The conclusions of his work are the following.
The linguistic map of Africa can be separated in four families: -Négro-Egyptien (Niger Congo, Nilo Saharan, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian) -Ethio-Semitic (he doesn't consider Arabic to be native to Africa) -Berber -Khoisan
His argumentation is based on the following points; I am going to point out some things I disagree with:
1) Semitic, Berber & Egyptian aren't related to each other:
-TO Gives 25+ examples of elements of the basic vocabulary HE ARBITRARILY CHOSE which are said to be different in the three branches. Problem is that many of them can actually be found in those branches as show by several AA comparative studies, he would have known this he had done exhaustive research or wasn't biased. TO(1993,pp.81-96) cites words for "mouth, sheep, brother, voice, man, son, name, all, earth, head, good, star, sun, year, place, night, take! , ear, teeth, enter, black, blood, beautiful, eternity, soul, god, river, hand, house" supposedly different in Egyptian, Semitic and Berber.
At least the following can actually be found in Semitic & or Berber with exact semantic matches: 1)"sheep" Eg. zr/ Ghadames (Brb) a-jur/adjur 2)"son" Eg. z3/Siwa (Brb) jir/djir 3)"determiner indicating totality" Eg. tjnw / Proto Sem *kull, 4)"determiner indicating totality" Eg.nb / Arabic (Sem.) bi-naw-bi/ Siwa (Brb.) nnuuba 5)"head, crane" Eg.D3.t, D3D3/ Proto Sem. gulgul-(at) 6)"sun" Eg. r'/ Guanche (Brb.) a-lio 7)"teeth" Eg. Ts(.t)/Brb: Shilh a-xws ; Zenaga uu-kS 8)"black" Eg. km/ Sem: Syriac 'ukkaamaa, Talmud 'ukkaam 9)"ear" Eg. idn ; Proto Sem. *'dn 10)"soul" Eg: b3 ; Proto Sem. *baal-
-In the same vein, one could do the same with as much other basic vocabulary's words ONE ARBITRARILY CHOSE attested in Semitic, Berber & Egyptian yet TO doesn't mention them (exact semantic matches still);
1)lips Eg. sp.t/ Proto-Sem *shap-at-
2)heart Eg. jb / Proto-Sem *lubb/ Proto-Brb *ulh
3)finger Eg.Db'/ Proto-Sem *Sib'/ Berb: Ghadames ta-DaBBu-t; Ahaggar ta Deho-t/
22)field, country Eg. sx.t / Akkadian saxxu ; Arabic saxaax-
23)belly, womb, body Eg. X.t/ Arabic Hawiiy-at
24)under Eg. Xr / Proto-Sem *xly
25)brain, head Eg. 3js / Proto-Sem *ra'sh
26)back Eg. s3 / Jibbali(Sem) sér
27)like, as Eg. js / Proto-Sem *-itj
28)left Eg. smH.j / Sha'mal-
29)side Eg. gs / Proto-Sem *giShSh
30)bone Eg. qs / Proto Brb *-ghVs
-Also to make -NC & NS look closer to Eg. than Sem & Ber, TO ALWAYS restricts the semantic value of the words to the exact Egyptian one, while he sometimes uses a much (and sometimes ridiculously) larger semantic field to find his NC & NS cognates;
1)Eg.km "black" /Mossi kim "to burn"
2)Eg. sn "brother" / Fon sunu "male"
3)Eg. sm3 "priest" /Kanuri same "sky"/ Baya sami~same "ram"
4)Eg. z "man"/ Yoruba so "to be productive" / Songhai sey "to sow"
5)Eg. ns "tongue" / Wolof nas "to speak with a nasal accent"
-TO "forgets" to mention several striking similarities between Eg., Ber. & Sem. For example the whole paradigm of "Pseudo Participle" which is used and identical in form and referent in Egyptian & Semitic is just ignored;
1Person Eg. k(w) / Akk. aaku 2 Person Eg. t(j) / Akk. aata (masc.); aati (fem.) 3 Person masc Eg. (w) /Akk. -a 3 Person fem. Eg. t(j) Akk. 4 Person Eg. w(j)n /Akk. aanu 5 Person Eg. tw(j)n / Akk. aatunu 6 Person Eg. w(j) / Akk. uu
-He also gives only one Semitic form from only ONE lect out of all the Semitic and or Berber languages (cf "black"), while he compares Egyptian forms from the whole NC phylum, from West-Atlantic to Southern Bantu(cf "mouth" from Sereer to Ronga)
2)Egyptian is related to Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan:
-TO cites the personal pronouns of his "langues négro-africaines modernes" as a proof of their relationship with Egyptian. For example he points out that the third and sixth person pronouns are the same in Wolof, referring to it as a striking similarity; while the WHOLE Egyptian paradigm is paralleled in Berber and Semitic;
1Person Eg. j/ Wlf maa/ Akk. ii/Tamazight (Berber dialect) i 2 Person masc Eg. k/ Wlf nga/ Akk. ka/ Tamazight k 2 Person fem Eg. T/ Wlf nga/ Akk. ki/ Tamazight km 3 Person masc Eg.f/ Wlf es~ef/ Akk.shu/Tamazight s 3 Person fem. Eg. s/ Wlf es~ef/ Akk. shi/ Tamazight s 4 Person Eg. n/ Wlf nanw/ Akk. ni/Tamazight ngh 5 Person Eg. Tn/ Wlf ngên/ Akk. kunuu/Proto Brb *kawan 6 Person /Eg.sn/ Wlf nañw/ Akk.shunuu/ Tamazight sn (masc) snt (fem)
-His evidence, whether it is about lexicon, sound correspondences or grammar is never paradigmatic, i.e. presenting linked and mutually substituable elements in a regular way; thus, his evidence, for example often based on monosyllabic examples (since he doesn't rely on systematic phonemic correspondences) doesn't differ than similarities that can be found in typologically related yet genetically unrelated languages, like languages favoring monosyllabic roots.
3)Eg. n "we" / Binisaya amô "we" (cf. Eg. n /Hausa mu comparison)
4)Eg. pr "house"/ Binisaya balay "house"
5)Eg. k "you (masc)/ Binisaya i-kaw
Since TO doesn't rely on systematic phonemic correspondences, items will even sometimes only need to be syllabically similar to be considered cognates: Ex 1: Eg. 'pi.t "head"/ Baguirmien do/ tunen mo-lo/ Grebo du lu/Lendu djo/ Bargu wi-du/igara o-dji/ zande li/ngbandi li/ gola e-dî~li/Yoruba o-ri/Akparabon e-ri/ ibo si/Likpe di-si/Furu zo
Ex 2: Eg. pr "house" /Sango dà/ Mbochi n-dao/ Gbea toa/ Bambara so/ Gban sa
Ex 3: Eg. m "spatial preposition"/ Fogny di/ Mondzombo gbo
Ex 4: Eg. mw.t "mother" /Kissi de/ Ngbandi ta/ Sango ta
Ex 5: Eg. D.t "cobra" / Bini enye / Ronga nyo-ka
In conclusion, I would say that since TO doesn't provide any convincing (being possibly distinguishable of typological traits) evidence to show a relationship between Niger-Congo Nilo-Saharan & Egyptian, and fails at showing the unrelatedness of Semitic, Berber & Egyptian, his classification cannot be objectively accepted by any scholar aware of modern knowledge about genetic and typological linguistics, and African linguistics.
I'll deal with GREENBERG, DALBY & MUKAROVSKY's classifications later.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now, let's wait on a response from Wally, Clyde, and Kemson. "Afterall, we don't want to lose sight of such expectations do we?" Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Winters, Wally, Lion(?), no reply? Very well then.
Here endeth the lesson.....
quote:In short: In this way, we make the attacks against African scholarship - as biased, shoddy, and anti-scientific *easy*, by playing right into it.
There is really no need to respond to what has been already addressed by both myself and Kemson; and Kemson seems like an individual who is obsessed with the truth, rather than one who seeks to advance his stature here:
quote: Me... The pattern has been, on this forum, to project this ideology; European scholars are scientifically objective, accurate, and are not to be disputed, and... African scholars are biased, have an agenda, and are constantly outdated! What rubbish!
Dr. Winters contributions here have been consistently derided, and not for the ideas and facts which he presents, but merely because he's an African scholar! He is ridiculed for showing the evolution (some would say, the mutation) of Africans from the continent to the rest of the world! Of course, Dravidians, like every human on the planet are descendants from Africans! Why is that such a statement to be denied. The Japanese, for example, did not just descend from some spacecraft that landed on the isle of Japan...
"Outdating African Scholars I was surprised, though probably not so much due to the lack of familiarity with the subject, that Kemsons reference to the work of Chinua Achebe's "Things fall apart" was not similarly ridiculed as being "Outdated" since it was published in 1958!
And I would love to see someone posit the ridiculous notion that the works of Kwame Nkrumah were outdated; as the African world is just barely now catching up to what he was saying a long time ago. The thesis of Diop's work (like those of Obenga) is unassailable, and like Diop himself has stated, it is only in the minor details (like typo-nitpicking) that one can, and have here, consistently quibble over. This is sad.
...Now, I'll ask some questions...
The science of the study of DNA was originally pioneered by White folks...
1) Why is it that of all the HIV/Aids prevalence in South Africa, for example, that only .6% of those affected are Whites?
2) And how was this (IMO, genetically engineered) disease able to initially focus its attacks on predominantly White male homosexuals?
3) And why is it now ravaging the non-White nations of the world?
And, oh yes, a good question from Dr. Winters: "Why don't you point out specific contentions of Diop and Obenga that are not accurate."
Dr., it'll never happen...
...and, everyone else, have a nice day... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.
The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages. To reconstruct a Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or type of vowels. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain places in words having similar meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
I.Consonantal Correspondence
English Tamil Manding
s=/=s
woman asa musa
t=/=t
fire ti ta
l=/=l
house lon lu 'family habitation
d=/=t
law di tili camp dagha otagh forest kaadu tuu
m=/=m
mother amma ma land man ma 'surface,area'
k=/=k
kill kal ki
man uku moko
b=/=p
great pal ba
x=/=s sheep xar 'ram' sara
c=/=s penis col sol-ma
abundant cal,sal s'ya
II. Full Correspondence of terms from Basic Vocabulary English Dravidian Manding life zi 'abundance clay banko-mannu banko blacksmith inumu numu lie kalla kalon cultivation bey be lord,chief gasa kana,gana to recite sid, sed siti great bal ba to do cey ke rock kal kulu road sila if,what eni ni to cut teg tege exalted ma
Linguist determine relationships by comparing terms from the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary of a language include lexical items of ‘universal human experience’, that exist among all humans that relate to a speakers culture, e.g., body parts, numerals, personal pronouns, the demonstratives and etc.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I will show you why use of the comparative method proves that Obenga was right.
quote: I have several problems with OBENGA's (TO) 1993 classification:
The conclusions of his work are the following.
The linguistic map of Africa can be separated in four families: -Négro-Egyptien (Niger Congo, Nilo Saharan, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian) -Ethio-Semitic (he doesn't consider Arabic to be native to Africa) -Berber -Khoisan
His argumentation is based on the following points; I am going to point out some things I disagree with:
1) Semitic, Berber & Egyptian aren't related to each other:
-TO Gives 25+ examples of elements of the basic vocabulary HE ARBITRARILY CHOSE which are said to be different in the three branches. Problem is that many of them can actually be found in those branches as show by several AA comparative studies, he would have known this he had done exhaustive research or wasn't biased.
First of all Obenga did not “arbitrarily” chose vocabulary items for his study he used culture words. Pei and Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics defines a cultural word as “any word which expresses ideas characteristic of the social or communal or cultural life of a community”.
Are you claiming that Obenga used words that were not culture words? Please provide evidence.
quote:
TO(1993,pp.81-96) cites words for "mouth, sheep, brother, voice, man, son, name, all, earth, head, good, star, sun, year, place, night, take! , ear, teeth, enter, black, blood, beautiful, eternity, soul, god, river, hand, house" supposedly different in Egyptian, Semitic and Berber.
At least the following can actually be found in Semitic & or Berber with exact semantic matches: 1)"sheep" Eg. zr/ Ghadames (Brb) a-jur/adjur 2)"son" Eg. z3/Siwa (Brb) jir/djir 3)"determiner indicating totality" Eg. tjnw / Proto Sem *kull, 4)"determiner indicating totality" Eg.nb / Arabic (Sem.) bi-naw-bi/ Siwa (Brb.) nnuuba 5)"head, crane" Eg.D3.t, D3D3/ Proto Sem. gulgul-(at) 6)"sun" Eg. r'/ Guanche (Brb.) a-lio 7)"teeth" Eg. Ts(.t)/Brb: Shilh a-xws ; Zenaga uu-kS 8)"black" Eg. km/ Sem: Syriac 'ukkaamaa, Talmud 'ukkaam 9)"ear" Eg. idn ; Proto Sem. *'dn 10)"soul" Eg: b3 ; Proto Sem. *baal-
The claim is that we have "exact" matches among these terms. This is absolutely false. For example
1. zr=/= jr/djr no match
2. z=/=jr/djr no match
3.tjnw=/= kll no match
5. d.t=/= glgl no match
6. r=/= alio no match
7. tsh=/= xws no match
An examination of these terms make it clear that the only terms related to Egyptian are primarily Proto-Semitic terms. This is not a surprise since Obenga already acknolwdeged that Ethio-Semitic is related to African languages. When you reconstruct a language you compare all the words within a language family. There are more Ethio-Semitic languages compared to the non- Ethio-Semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew), therefore the proto-form will reflect terms similar to Ethio-Semitic.
A comparison of the terms above show that only 8-10 are possible cognates of Egyptian and these terms are Proto-Semitic. Several of the terms: 4 and 5 are not really cognates at all. These terms include the affixes –bi, the Arabic preposition and the Arabic ending –at.
quote: -In the same vein, one could do the same with as much other basic vocabulary's words ONE ARBITRARILY CHOSE attested in Semitic, Berber & Egyptian yet TO doesn't mention them (exact semantic matches still);
1)lips Eg. sp.t/ Proto-Sem *shap-at-
2)heart Eg. jb / Proto-Sem *lubb/ Proto-Brb *ulh
3)finger Eg.Db'/ Proto-Sem *Sib'/ Berb: Ghadames ta-DaBBu-t; Ahaggar ta Deho-t/
22)field, country Eg. sx.t / Akkadian saxxu ; Arabic saxaax-
23)belly, womb, body Eg. X.t/ Arabic Hawiiy-at
24)under Eg. Xr / Proto-Sem *xly
25)brain, head Eg. 3js / Proto-Sem *ra'sh
26)back Eg. s3 / Jibbali(Sem) sér
27)like, as Eg. js / Proto-Sem *-itj
28)left Eg. smH.j / Sha'mal-
29)side Eg. gs / Proto-Sem *giShSh
30)bone Eg. qs / Proto Brb *-ghVs
An examination of these 30 terms make it clear only 1,6,8,12,13,14,21,22,24, and 29, possible cognates. Of these terms , all but 21 and 22 are Proto-Semitic and would reflect the Ethio-Semitic form of these terms.
Twenty-one (21) and 22 are from Akkadian. This is not surprising because Akkadian is closely related to Ethio-Semitic and probably reflect the African origin of the Akkadian people.
quote: -Also to make -NC & NS look closer to Eg. than Sem & Ber, TO ALWAYS restricts the semantic value of the words to the exact Egyptian one, while he sometimes uses a much (and sometimes ridiculously) larger semantic field to find his NC & NS cognates;
1)Eg.km "black" /Mossi kim "to burn"
2)Eg. sn "brother" / Fon sunu "male"
3)Eg. sm3 "priest" /Kanuri same "sky"/ Baya sami~same "ram"
4)Eg. z "man"/ Yoruba so "to be productive" / Songhai sey "to sow"
5)Eg. ns "tongue" / Wolof nas "to speak with a nasal accent"
Next the author claims that the Egyptian and Sem. And Berber pronouns agree.
This is false. Let’s look at the Pronouns
Egyptian
wy I………………………………………..n ‘we’
tw ‘thou (m)………………………….tn ‘you’
tn thou (f)……………………………….sn ‘they’
sh ‘he’……………………………………
shy ‘she’………………………………….
Arabic
ana, ani ‘I’ ……………..ekhna ‘we’
snti (m) thou……………..entu ‘you’
inti (f) thou………………….khum ‘they’
huwa ‘he’
hiya ‘she’
ana faqir “I am poor”.
Akkadian
Anaku ‘I’ …………………………………………….anini, ninu ‘we’
Atta (m) ‘you’ ……………………………………….attunu ‘they’
Atti (f) ‘you’
Shu ‘she’
Shi ‘him’
quote:
-TO "forgets" to mention several striking similarities between Eg., Ber. & Sem. For example the whole paradigm of "Pseudo Participle" which is used and identical in form and referent in Egyptian & Semitic is just ignored;
1Person Eg. k(w) / Akk. aaku 2 Person Eg. t(j) / Akk. aata (masc.); aati (fem.) 3 Person masc Eg. (w) /Akk. -a 3 Person fem. Eg. t(j) Akk. 4 Person Eg. w(j)n /Akk. aanu 5 Person Eg. tw(j)n / Akk. aatunu 6 Person Eg. w(j) / Akk. uu
These pronouns do not prove that Afro-Asiatic exist. These pronouns are mainly Egyptian and Akkadian pronouns. There are no Berber pronouns among them.
quote:
-He also gives only one Semitic form from only ONE lect out of all the Semitic and or Berber languages (cf "black"), while he compares Egyptian forms from the whole NC phylum, from West-Atlantic to Southern Bantu(cf "mouth" from Sereer to Ronga)
2)Egyptian is related to Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan:
-TO cites the personal pronouns of his "langues négro-africaines modernes" as a proof of their relationship with Egyptian. For example he points out that the third and sixth person pronouns are the same in Wolof, referring to it as a striking similarity; while the WHOLE Egyptian paradigm is paralleled in Berber and Semitic;
1Person Eg. j/ Wlf maa/ Akk. ii/Tamazight (Berber dialect) i 2 Person masc Eg. k/ Wlf nga/ Akk. ka/ Tamazight k 2 Person fem Eg. T/ Wlf nga/ Akk. ki/ Tamazight km 3 Person masc Eg.f/ Wlf es~ef/ Akk.shu/Tamazight s 3 Person fem. Eg. s/ Wlf es~ef/ Akk. shi/ Tamazight s 4 Person Eg. n/ Wlf nanw/ Akk. ni/Tamazight ngh 5 Person Eg. Tn/ Wlf ngên/ Akk. kunuu/Proto Brb *kawan 6 Person /Eg.sn/ Wlf nañw/ Akk.shunuu/ Tamazight sn (masc) snt (fem)
In conclusion, I would say that since TO doesn't provide any convincing (being possibly distinguishable of typological traits) evidence to show a relationship between Niger-Congo Nilo-Saharan & Egyptian, and fails at showing the unrelatedness of Semitic, Berber & Egyptian, his classification cannot be objectively accepted by any scholar aware of modern knowledge about genetic and typological linguistics, and African linguistics.
I'll deal with GREENBERG, DALBY & MUKAROVSKY's classifications later.*
These pronouns do not prove Afro-Asiatic exist. They support Obenga’s research that Ethio-Semitic is related to Egyptian but not the Berber language. Let’s look at the phonemic pattern
1. j =/= I no match
2. No Egyptian k pronoun.
3. t=/=g/k no match
4. f=/= es/shu/s no match
5. sh =/= es/shu match
6. n=n/ngh match
7. tn=/=kn/kw no match
8. shn=shnt match
An examination of the terms make it clear that the so-called Semitic terms are Akkadian terms which as I said earlier is closely related to Ethio-Semitic.
This linguistic material does not dispute the research of Obenga. It compliments Obenga’s research and shows that Obenga was correct in including Ethio-Semitic in the African family of languages. It also shows that Arabic and Berber is not related to Egyptian. As a result, the Afro-Asiatic languages do not exist.
quote:1) Why is it that of all the HIV/Aids prevalence in South Africa, for example, that only .6% of those affected are Whites?
I don't know
2) And how was this (IMO, genetically engineered) disease able to initially focus its attacks on predominantly White male homosexuals?
3) And why is it now ravaging the non-White nations of the world?
^ Apparently you've been taking lessons from Professor Horemheb.
Whenever he had no answers, he would change the subject to some Americo-politio nonsense, and then wait for the suckers to come along and help him run the topic off course.
Wonder if any suckers will take your bait?
Here's some advice for you Wally.
Years ago on this forum, Ausar warned you about the dangers of putting all your scholastic 'eggs in one basket'.
What he meant was.... don't only focus on learning mdw ntr, or you will get into trouble when the topic of Ancient African history requires literacy in more than one discipline.
It's still not too late for you to take Ausar's advice.
Learn anthropology, and genetics....or you will be easily wrong footed, as you most certainly have been in this thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: First of all Obenga did not “arbitrarily” chose vocabulary items for his study he used culture words. Pei and Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics defines a cultural word as “any word which expresses ideas characteristic of the social or communal or cultural life of a community”.
Yes, but did he select cuture words that agreed with his premise, and ignore culture words that contradict his premise?
re:
1)"sheep" Eg. zr/ Ghadames (Brb) a-jur/adjur 2)"son" Eg. z3/Siwa (Brb) jir/djir 3)"determiner indicating totality" Eg. tjnw / Proto Sem *kull, 4)"determiner indicating totality" Eg.nb / Arabic (Sem.) bi-naw-bi/ Siwa (Brb.) nnuuba 5)"head, crane" Eg.D3.t, D3D3/ Proto Sem. gulgul-(at) 6)"sun" Eg. r'/ Guanche (Brb.) a-lio 7)"teeth" Eg. Ts(.t)/Brb: Shilh a-xws ; Zenaga uu-kS 8)"black" Eg. km/ Sem: Syriac 'ukkaamaa, Talmud 'ukkaam 9)"ear" Eg. idn ; Proto Sem. *'dn 10)"soul" Eg: b3 ; Proto Sem. *baal-Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:An examination of these terms make it clear that the only terms related to Egyptian are primarily Proto-Semitic terms.
The contention of Afrisan language phylum is precisely that Proto-Semtic split off other African languages either in Egypt or Ethiopia. Unless you intend to affirm Afrisan language family, I don't see how admitting this helps you? Really, you'd be better off arguing that they were recent loan words.
quote: This is not a surprise since Obenga already acknolwdeged that Ethio-Semitic is related to African languages.
This statement is almost dizzingly inconsisent.
1st: You just acknolwedged the African origin of Proto-Semitic, which is parent to *all* semitic language. So why pretend the relationship can now be delimited to Ethio-Semitic only?
2nd: Ethiopian-Semitic is not *related* to African languages. Ethiopian Semitic IS African language.
One of the perverse consequences of the Obenga catagory, is that it juxtaposes...Ethiopian, to Negro, ie - Ethio Semitic is not a "Negro African" language, unlike Mandingo, Mdw ntr, and Shona??
Khoisan is not a "negro African language", but Xhosa is???
This has almost nothing to do with 'language' and is completely contrived racialism.
quote:There are more Ethio-Semitic languages compared to the non- Ethio-Semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew), therefore the proto-form will reflect terms similar to Ethio-Semitic.
And again, this is concordant with Afrisan's location of the origin of this phylum in Africa.
You are completely overlooking the fact that words comparisions you are supposidly opposing are not only Ethiopian/Semitic, but Syrian, Akadian, Arabia.
You are burdened to prove that the above are unrelated to other languages in the Afrisan family.
You have not done so.
In fact, I posit that if these languages were spoken primarily by Black People..... you would not even try.
Your view of langauge is over-determined by the need to make language concord with 'race'.
quote: A comparison of the terms above show that only 8-10 are possible cognates of Egyptian and these terms are Proto-Semitic.
Again, makes no point, since proto-semitic is exactly what is related Akadian to Mdw ntr and Hausa, for example.
What you need to do is show us how the same words in Mdw ntr are related to 'proto Bantu'?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Semitic speaking people are native to Northeast Africa, they did not originate in Arabia. The Semitic languages are divided into four groups: North -east Semitic, Northwest Semitic, Southeast Semitic and Southwest Semitic. The Ethiopian Semitic languages belong to the Southeast Semitic subgroup.
In ancient times modern Ethiopia and Somalia was called Punt. As a result we call the Semitic languages of Ethiopia: Puntite languages. In the Sumerian texts these Puntites were called Meluhhaites.
The Puntites lived in the Eastern desert of Egypt and Arabia for many years and on the Horn of Africa. The earliest representatives of this group are depicted on the Ivory label of King Dan (Udimu) of the first Dynasty of Kemit.
During the neolithic subpluvial the Red Sea area recieved more rainfall. This area was blanketed with vegetation and the people grew ensete, barley and dates. They also grazed sheep, goats and cattle.
Arabia at this time was a vast savannah with marshes and lakes. What is now known as the Rub al-Khali or Empty Quarter, today, an arid mountainous area, was then well watered. The Cushitic speaking people of Ethiopia also appear to have had some representatives in Arabia during this period .
The people of Punt lived in an area stretching from the Eastern desert of Egypt, eastward to the Red Sea, and Central Africa. these people spoke Puntite/Semitic languages.
This group of Africoids lived in the Eastern Desert and the Red Sea Hills. Whereas most Africans are clean shaven the Puntites preferred to wear beards. The boats of these Easterners are found engraved at prehistoric sites in Mesopotamia. In the Egyptian records the standard of the Easterners was the Set animal.
The Egyptian traditions tell us that there was a struggle between Set and Horus which took place in Nubia. This story indicates that in ancient times Semitic-speaking people formerly lived in Nubia; this explains the Egyptian identification of Punt or Pwene as "the land of the gods". (Ullendorf 1973) The Egyptians called the people of Punt Kenbetu.
In the ancient literature of Kemit (Egypt) and Mesopotamia, Punt was recognized as a sea power. From ports along the Red Sea, the people of Punt traded with of Kemit, Arabia, West Asia and Mesopotamia.
Modern Ethiopia is part of the land known to the Egyptians "the lands of the gods". The inhabitants of Punt, on the other hand called their country Arwe. It was from here that the Semitic speaking nations moved northward into Arabia and Mesopotamia.
The Kemites allude to the Arwe Kingdom in a short story which tells how a good natured serpent of great size speaks to a ship wrecked Egyptian whose life he saved:
"I am the Prince of Punt...But it shall happen when[thou] art parted from this place ,that never shalt thou behold this island more, for it will become water...."(Doresse 1971, p.17)
This "good natured serpent" may refer to the King-Serpent that ruled Punt according to Ethiopian traditions.
The ships of Punt were very large, as early as 2500 B.C., they had ships with 60 oars. In the records of Sumer-Akkad there are frequent passages referring to the large boats of Punt, which they called Meluhha . The ships of Meluhha made many voyages to Mesopotamia.
Meluhha, included the area from Nubia eastward to the coast of the Red Sea. This view is supported by the discovery of C-Group pottery usually associated with Nubia, found in excavated sites in Eritrea. (Zayed 1981, p.142)
The Meluhhaites were known as the "black men" to the Sumerians .The Akkadians called them "the Meluhhaites, the men of the Black land". They sold many products including metals and precious stones to the people of Mesopotamia.(Kramer 1978, pp. 76-80)
There were many Egyptian contacts with Punt. According to Herodotus, the Kemite Pharoah Sestrotris carried his conquest as far as the Red Sea, where he erected a stele at Deire. We have evidence of Egyptian expeditions to Punt sent by Pepi II in 2400 B.C.,and Mentuholep IV to bring back rare products from ancient Punt. Under Mentuholep V, the vizier Amenemhet established a port near Safaga to insure regular trade with Punt. The most famous voyage to Punt was undertaken by Queen Hatshepsut (c. 1520-1484), details of her mission are depicted on the walls of her temple at Deir el Bahri. (Gardiner 1978, p.78)
Many ports in modern Ethiopia have been used for millennia. The inscriptions of Tuthmosis III refer to such places as Outculit, Hamasu and Tekaru; these names suggest the modern Ethiopian cities of Adulis, Hamasu and Tigre. (Doresse 1971, p.17)
The Egyptians/Kemites made it clear that Punt controlled both sides of the Red Sea. (Budge 1959, p.53, n.1) In the Kemite inscription the Hymn of Ra, we read "The land of Punt is established [to give] the perfumes which thou smellest with thy nostrils".(Budge 1959, p.149) Stuart Munro-Hay noted that: "One extremely interesting Egyptian record from an 18th Dynasty tomb at Thebes actually shows Puntite trading boats or rafts with triangular sails ( Save-Soderbergh 1946, p.24) for transporting the products of Punt, indicating that the commerce was not exclusively Egyptian- carried, and that local Red Sea peoples were already seafaring...."
In Ethiopia there were three great empires Punt-Arwe, the Da'mot or Di'amat Kingdom and Axum. The first kingdom of Ethiopia was founded by the Habesha or Habeshat who were first mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, in connection with the Land of Punt.
The Punt empire was made up of people speaking diverse languages. The culture bearers may have been the Tigrinya speakers who call their language Habesha, i.e., Abyssinian par excellence. (Doresse 1971) The term Habesha seems to represent an old name for Abyssinia (the ancient name for modern- day Ethiopia) and may be connected with the Amharic word washa "a cave or cavern".
The Puntite languages are characterized by a basic vocabulary, a system of roots and vowel patterns and the formation of derived verbs by prefixes. The South Arabian languages: Sabaean, Minaean and Hadramautic, are slightly different from modern South Arabic, but analogous to the Ethiopian languages. This represents the influence of the Jectanid tribes on South Arabic.
It is clear that the Proto-Puntite speakers lived in Africa. Wolf Leslau (1951,1957) has made it clear that Ethiopic and South Arabic form a dialectical unity. Dialectical unity means that two or more languages form a unified dialect.
According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian , Minaean and Ethiopic all belong to the same group of Semitic languages, even though they are separated in time and by great geographical distance. This is surprising considering the fact that Ethiopic and Akkadian are separated by many hundreds of years. The best example of this unity is the presence of shared archaicism .(Leslau 1951) The linguistic feature of shared archaicism is the appearance of the vowel after the first consonant of the imperfect. (Hertzron & Bender 1976, p.23)
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 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 in Black African languages we rarely, if at all find words formed with double consonants.
The fact that Southeast Semitic has shared archaicism with Puntite shows that at the time the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack of this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the Indo-European speakers who invaded Palestine and Arabia between 1300 B.C. and 900 B.C. Semitic verb root
Akkadian Ethiopic/S. Arabian
kl 'to be dark' ekelu Soqotri okil 'to cover'
mr 'to see' amaru Geez ammara;Tigre amara
br 'to catch' baru b'r
dgh 'remove' daqu Geez dagba 'to perforate'
kdn 'to protect' kidin Tigre kadna
Clearly Black African language forms the base of most Semitic words. Diop (1978,p.113) recognized that in relation to Arabic words, once the first consonant was suppressed, there is often an African root. This phenomenon was also recognized by Wiener (1922, v.III) who believed that many African words were of Arabic origin.
The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary of the Puntite languages.
Cushitic English Semitic Saho la wild cow *la-at Samoli la id. id.
This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient times. The evidence discussed above makes it clear that Arabia, which was occupied in neolithic times by the Anu, was probably not the original homeland of the Semitic speakers. Moden Ethiopians originated in Africa, not Arabia.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Semitic speaking people are native to Northeast Africa
If you acknowledge the above, then you admit that Semitic is and African language family, in which case you contradict the basis of separating it from related African languages.
Obenga separates Semetic from other African languages, by virtue of the split between so called Negro African and so called Ethio Semitic.
He further refuses to include semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew, based on their ostinsible extra African geographic origin, as opposed to their actual linguistic affinity.
quote:The Semitic languages are divided into four groups: North -east Semitic, Northwest Semitic, Southeast Semitic and Southwest Semitic. The Ethiopian Semitic languages belong to the Southeast Semitic subgroup.
Doesn't matter if you divide them into 40 groups...
If their relationship with Mdw Ntr, Tamzight, Somali and Hausa is via proto-semitic, then you are affirming the Afrisan language family....whether you admit it, or not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The claim is that we have "exact" matches among these terms. This is absolutely false. For example
1. zr=/= jr/djr no match
2. z=/=jr/djr no match
3.tjnw=/= kll no match
5. d.t=/= glgl no match
6. r=/= alio no match
7. tsh=/= xws no match
An examination of these terms make it clear that the only terms related to Egyptian are primarily Proto-Semitic terms. This is not a surprise since Obenga already acknolwdeged that Ethio-Semitic is related to African languages. When you reconstruct a language you compare all the words within a language family. There are more Ethio-Semitic languages compared to the non- Ethio-Semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew), therefore the proto-form will reflect terms similar to Ethio-Semitic.
That was precisely the point. Egyptian appears to be relatively more closely related to Ethio-Semitic [and the Semitic family in general] and "Berber" than it likely is with the languages that Obenga closely grouped it with. While he acknowledges Ethio-Semitic and Berber are African languages, or at least languages spoken in Africa, he groups them differently from Egyptic...and you know it.
What you need to do is show us how the same words in Mdw ntr are related to 'proto Bantu'?
The Bantu languages are not one of my interest. This has already been done by Obenga and several other researchers.
.
That's and amazing statement since Bantu is the largest sub-family within Obenga's "Negro African" with more than 500 langauges spoken by severl hundred million people spread from West/Central/East and Southern AFrica.
Perhaps you should find more interest in actual languages of Africa, like Bantu, Semitic, and Berber, instead of chasing fantasy Afro-Japanese-Dravidio-Olmecians of Atlantis - to everywhere *but* Africa?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Again I say why anyone would not count Berber and Semitic as African languages even though both groups are spoken in Africa, while counting Dravidian, Japanese, or Olmec as African languages even though non of those are spoken in Africa is way beyond me.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It also shows the superficiality of the critique of Afrisan language phylum.
How can one critique the familial inclusion of mdw and Semitic when one acknolwedges the African origin of proto-semitic, and at the same time, be caught with no answer when challenged to document the supposidly closer relationshiop of mdw ntr to proto-Bantu?
In other words - they admit the relationships they are supposed to be refuting, and cannot document the relationship they are claiming in its stead.
This answers the question of why there is no rational methodology in place, rather only arbitrary word lists. It's because no methodical approach will support 'the theory'.
Midogbe is absolutely right.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Two other inaccuracies that Diop made was to say Dravidians Indians are Africans using the Eurocentric racial typology of "negroid", just because their black and their culture holds certain similarities. Of course YOU still persue this fictional notion as 'fact'. Diop also made the claim that so-called 'mongoloid' Asians are the result of hybridization between "negroids and caucasoids". All of which are debunked claims of the past that you seem desperated to hold on to.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
), who hold three of the original nine patents for the IBM compatible PC design as chief engineer working with IBM personal computers. How significant was his invention? his one invention, the ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) permitted multiple devices to be connected to a computers mainboard allowing the mouse, printer, video card, keyboard…etc all to be used at the same time forming the foundation of every modern computer in use today (from PC's, Macs to Supercomputers). Not to mention Marc Hannah, co-founder SGI, principal scientist and chief architect of many video systems some of you have heard of or even used. Or John Henry Thompson (known as the father of Lingo), who held the highest position as Chief Scientist, invented the Lingo computer language as well as the chief architect behind the Macromedia Director software authoring package and Macromedia’s Shockwave playback technologies. Interestingly, John Henry Thompson named his sons Nile and Pharoah.
Printer-friendly view of this topic