posted
This isn't meant to be an exhaustive study, but one merely to show some interesting relations between "Bantu" and the Mdu Ntr in order to support the contention which fundamentally states that the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions...
Bantu The word Bantu is a combination of Ba_Ntu; it literally means 'all of the people'- and comes from the Bantu, thusly:
a) mu = I, me - Mututsi b) wa = One - Watutsi c) ba = All - Batutsi
Similarities in the Mdu Ntr; a) mu = essence, seed, sperm b) wa = One c) bw = People
Also; the root word in "Bantu" is "Ntu" or "person"
in Mdu Nter Ntu = those who, them, they
Also; in Bantu the word for "Man" is "Lomi" in Bohairic Coptic Lome = "Man, Human being" ...
P.S. and by the way the word "Mdu Nter" is correctly pronounced "eM.Dah.oo eN.t.Chair" Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wally wrote: the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions...
Derived from Egyptian? This would imply that before the Egyptian language(s) there were no other languages spoken in the continent of Africa, is this what you're saying?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions...
Wally and Diop have the same theory that all African languages derive from AE...that's a dangerous path, very dangerous...indeed...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions...
Wally and Diop have the same theory that all African languages derive from AE...that's a dangerous path, very dangerous...indeed...
Exactly that's why i don't like afrocentricts, Wally personates them as a whole. They think that we rest of Africans are prepared to jeopardize our background and act the same and put everything on the same basket just so that they can feel better about themselves in their little lala land, puueefz, Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is well known that the Bantu languages and Egyptian are genetically related. The dynamics of this relationship have been worked out by Th. Obenga, Alain Anselin, Oscar Pfouma and Gilbert Ngom.
The relationship between these languages is supported by grammatical and lexical similarities. For example the past and future tenses in Egyptian and Mbosi ( a Bantu language spoken in the Congo ) are the same:
Ancient Egyptian
ii ni i (I have come) ma n l nfrw k (I have seen your beauty)
Mbosi
i mi yaa (I have come) i mi taa ongondo a no ( I have seen your beauty)
The Mbosi 'mi' correspomds to the Egyptian 'n'.
The religious vocabulary conveys much of the unity between Bantu and Egyptian. For example, in Egyptian douat = eqauals the world of the dead; and compares favorably with Mbosi doua, which relates to the lower regions or to pass from one shore to the next.
In Egyptian we have the term 'ouaab, waab', which denotes the idea of a mysterious transformation or regeneration. This corresponds to Mbosi 'ouaa, waab' which means 'to be pure, renewed, regenerated, purified'.
In Egyptian and African languages the term *Ku, signifies death or darkness. For example:
Egyptian Khu 'the spiritual form of the deceased person'
Ewe ku 'death' Yoruba iku 'death, morality' Teke kwa 'to die' Mbosi leku, iku 'death' Fang ku 'to illuminate in the dark'
In addition to these terms there are other Egyptian and Mbosi cognates
quote:the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions...
Wally and Diop have the same theory that all African languages derive from AE...that's a dangerous path, very dangerous...indeed...
Even more dangerous is when the genetic relationship is proven. But dangerous to who? Well, in chuckles, I think most individuals can figure out that easy answer.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Exactly that's why i don't like afrocentricts, Wally personates them as a whole. They think that we rest of Africans are prepared to jeopardize our background and act the same and put everything on the same basket just so that they can feel better about themselves in their little lala land, puueefz,
You still haven't provided a counter anthropological demonstration to properly refute the claims made here. I believe that would make all your statements recently made regarding the genetic relationship between Bantu and Ancient Egyptian language(s) inadmissible.
I don't expect many of the usual suspected detractors of Black African genetic relationship to its ancient past to responds to this topic due to lack of proper counter objective rebuttals. Lacking counter demonstrations, one might clearly see the message in the analogy of how easy it is for the mice to disappear when the cats come out and play.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting compilations, but I couldn't help but notice a lot of those terms that are not of common vocabulary and are relatively specific, like the names of places, gods and persons, terms for king or queen, priests and the like, that can easily be susceptible to cultural import, and/or quick change, are generally viewed in linguistic circles as being not ideal for comparative analysis between languages. It will perhaps be better to see *exhaustive* grammatic correlation between these languages and ancient Egyptian.
I've also noticed some terms like "Set" ~ "woman", which if my memory serves me correctly, is also the name of an Egyptian deity or neter, who embodies chaos, conflict, storms, desert, and so forth; same with "Ade" ~ "crown" - ancient Egyptian had more than one term for crowns for instance. Those which do correspond to *regularly-used* and frequently re-occurring terms in the average person's lexicon, however are interesting, and since, I my familiarity with ancient Egyptian-specific vocabulary is relatively limited, I can only turn to the question of where these terms were extracted in primary Egyptian documentation and how.
Ps - The heading of the topic speaks of relationship between "Bantu" languages and Mdu Ntr; those languages exemplified in the compilations, are not considered to be "Bantu" sub-languages, save for Mbosi.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: You still haven't provided a counter anthropological demonstration to properly refute the claims made here. I believe that would make all your statements recently made regarding the genetic relationship between Bantu and Ancient Egyptian language(s) inadmissible.
I don't expect many of the usual suspected detractors of Black African genetic relationship to its ancient past to responds to this topic due to lack of proper counter objective rebuttals. Lacking counter demonstrations, one might clearly see the message in the analogy of how easy it is for the mice to disappear when the cats come out and play.
Why should we provide any counter, when it is a well established fact that Bantu languages did NOT originate in Egypt!
You don't realize it, but the whole premise does more than just show relation between African language, but goes so far as to say that African cultures like Bantu are derived from Egyptian! This is no more than an insult to these African cultures to attribute them to other peoples or cultures!!
This would be the same as me attributing Filipine language and culture to Chinese! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some literature, such as "Africanisms in American Culture" by Joseph E. Holloway", that also relates the spread and survival of Black languages, worldwide. However, they all seem to be caught in the rut of NEVER going back to its original source, invariable starting and stopping in West and Central Africa. (But I do applaud their efforts for it takes considerable time and effort to trace just a few words!)
Jazz One example that can be given is that of tracing the word 'jazz' only back to the Bantu word 'jaja': How we rectify this limitation is that we first must understand the original meaning of the word 'Jazz' itself:
If you were to talk to any professional Jazz musician, you will invariable discover that these musicians loathe this term and use it only because they feel that they're stuck with it. We, like they have already, must understand that the term is associated with fornication and is in essence a derogatory term... Using this knowledge we can then consult the Mdu Ntr for a similar term to 'jaja' and with the meanings of the word 'Jazz', which we have just described, and VOILA! -
Mdu Ntr djai - impure man (ie, Djadjai = a really impure man) djai - wrong, evil dja - sin, guilt, offensive (ie, DjaDja = JaJa; really sinful or offensive...)
Okra This word is traced back to the Akan of Ghana, but do WE stop here? Of course we don't...
quote: Okra, also called gumbo or okro, is a plant cultivated for its immature pods. The pods are eaten as a vegetable chiefly in the southern part of the United States... Okra is a kind of hibiscus and is related to cotton. It is a native of Africa.
And being, myself, from Louisiana, we pronounce it "Oak.ree"
Well, in Budge's dictionary, p93b, we have the word (using the modern notational style) Jkr: a plant. Now I would wager a hamburger and a cookie that this word is pronounced Okre!
Jive Now this word is traced back to the Wolof word "Jev" or playful; useful, but what its present usage is:
quote: to engage in kidding, teasing, or exaggeration; to tease; fool; kid; insincere, pretentious, or deceptive.
And what does this type of behavior have on the one who is 'jivved?'
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You don't realize it, but the whole premise does more than just show relation between African language, but goes so far as to say that African cultures like Bantu are derived from Egyptian! This is no more than an insult to these African cultures to attribute them to other peoples or cultures!!
This would be the same as me attributing Filipine language and culture to Chinese!
Are you identifying yourself as a usual detractor of Black African genetic relationship? Fortunately, people who opt to throw logical commonsense ideas to the waste side, especially those who have no connection to the subjects, culture or heritage in focus, don't have the final say. Black African scientists, scholars and specialist have the final say and they should play this role responsibly and un-apologetically.
“This is no more than an insult to these African cultures to attribute them to other peoples or cultures!!”
So now all else fails, no counter demonstrations, no use of commonsense and the best the quote directly above can do is try pitting one African culture to another? Following this badly formed logic, one can equally suffice it being an insult to American English speakers to attribute the foundational origin of the English language, to the Germanic culture. No matter which angle of detraction is chosen, the valid hypotheses's dealing with Black African genetic connections to its own history are impossible to refute, especially by so-called experts who are not of Black African origin (or at least raised in the environment) and don’t speak any of the ancient Black African languages to even think about successfully refuting anthropologically proven facts, leaving detractors limited with stale and intellectually uninteresting options, as the only weapon of choice for the inevitable. Usual these choices are delivered in the form of the baaaad ol’ silent treatment, outright emotional rejection lacking any logical explanation or formation of wild creative mythical theories.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
There is some literature, such as "Africanisms in American Culture" by Joseph E. Holloway", that also relates the spread and survival of Black languages, worldwide. However, they all seem to be caught in the rut of NEVER going back to its original source, invariable starting and stopping in West and Central Africa. (But I do applaud their efforts for it takes considerable time and effort to trace just a few words!)
Jazz One example that can be given is that of tracing the word 'jazz' only back to the Bantu word 'jaja': How we rectify this limitation is that we first must understand the original meaning of the word 'Jazz' itself:
If you were to talk to any professional Jazz musician, you will invariable discover that these musicians loathe this term and use it only because they feel that they're stuck with it. We, like they have already, must understand that the term is associated with fornication and is in essence a derogatory term... Using this knowledge we can then consult the Mdu Ntr for a similar term to 'jaja' and with the meanings of the word 'Jazz', which we have just described, and VOILA! -
Mdu Ntr djai - impure man (ie, Djadjai = a really impure man) djai - wrong, evil dja - sin, guilt, offensive (ie, DjaDja = JaJa; really sinful or offensive...)
Okra This word is traced back to the Akan of Ghana, but do WE stop here? Of course we don't...
quote: Okra, also called gumbo or okro, is a plant cultivated for its immature pods. The pods are eaten as a vegetable chiefly in the southern part of the United States... Okra is a kind of hibiscus and is related to cotton. It is a native of Africa.
And being, myself, from Louisiana, we pronounce it "Oak.ree"
Well, in Budge's dictionary, p93b, we have the word (using the modern notational style) Jkr: a plant. Now I would wager a hamburger and a cookie that this word is pronounced Okre!
Jive Now this word is traced back to the Wolof word "Jev" or playful; useful, but what its present usage is:
quote: to engage in kidding, teasing, or exaggeration; to tease; fool; kid; insincere, pretentious, or deceptive.
And what does this type of behavior have on the one who is 'jivved?'
Veering away a little from the intro topic, are we? Wally, aside from some tentative connections between certain words, how about adding some *jazz* to this discourse, with *substantive* grammatic comparative analysis between Bantu languages and ancient Egyptian. What do you have in store for us, to this end? Please share.
As for words, remember we were given something to initially work with? Recap:
Those which do correspond to *regularly-used* and frequently re-occurring terms in the average person's lexicon, however are interesting, and since, I my familiarity with ancient Egyptian-specific vocabulary is relatively limited, I can only turn to the question of where these terms were extracted in primary Egyptian documentation and how.
Ps - The heading of the topic speaks of relationship between "Bantu" languages and Mdu Ntr; those languages exemplified in the compilations, are not considered to be "Bantu" sub-languages, save for Mbosi.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: Are you identifying yourself as a usual detractor of Black African genetic relationship? Fortunately, people who opt to throw logical commonsense ideas to the waste side, especially those who have no connection to the subjects, culture or heritage in focus, don't have the final say. Black African scientists, scholars and specialist have the final say and they should play this role responsibly and un-apologetically.
“This is no more than an insult to these African cultures to attribute them to other peoples or cultures!!”
So now all else fails, no counter demonstrations, no use of commonsense and the best the quote directly above can do is try pitting one African culture to another? Following this badly formed logic, one can equally suffice it being an insult to American English speakers to attribute the foundational origin of the English language, to the Germanic culture. No matter which angle of detraction is chosen, the valid hypotheses's dealing with Black African genetic connections to its own history are impossible to refute, especially by so-called experts who are not of Black African origin (or at least raised in the environment) and don’t speak any of the ancient Black African languages to even think about successfully refuting anthropologically proven facts, leaving detractors limited with stale and intellectually uninteresting options, as the only weapon of choice for the inevitable. Usual these choices are delivered in the form of the baaaad ol’ silent treatment, outright emotional rejection lacking any logical explanation or formation of wild creative mythical theories.
I never denied any genetic relationship between all African languages. Most linguist acknowledge that, even Greenberg!
What I do point out however is the erroneous belief that all African languages are those like Bantu somehow stem from an Egyptian or Nile Valley origin!! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the originating point of most African language familes isn't somewhere around the Nile Valley environs then where is it?
Of course Africa's languages don't originate from dynastic times nor from Egypt. But is that what anyone is positing or are they just positing the relationship of Egyptic to families farther afield?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never denied any genetic relationship between all African languages. Most linguist acknowledge that, even Greenberg!
What I do point out however is the erroneous belief that all African languages are those like Bantu somehow stem from an Egyptian or Nile Valley origin!!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:alTakruri wrote: Of course Africa's languages don't originate from dynastic times nor from Egypt. But is that what anyone is positing or are they just positing the relationship of Egyptic to families farther afield?
According to Wally "Black" languages of Africa are derived from dialects spoken in Egypt 1000 B.C.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: If the originating point of most African language familes isn't somewhere around the Nile Valley environs then where is it?
I think they originated in the Central African highlands. It is clear to me that most of the world was occupied by the Seed People, the small Khoi, pygmy etc. people. This is supporetd by the earlier presence of small people around the world who formerly existed on the diverse continents.
It seems to me that sometime between 4000-3500 BC some catastrophe took place that destroyed the great civilizations of these people. After this catastrophic event the tall Africans represented by the Egyptians, Mande, etc. came down from the mountains and took over the areas where the former civilizations of these small Blacks existed..
These people were everywhere. The traditions of many West African people, like the Mande claim that small people lived in the area before they arrived on the scene.
Of course this is no substitute for CotonouByNight's excellent posts which after more than two years is finally answering rasol's question: "Is it possible to show examples of the above, or is it beyound the scope of what can be concisely demonstrated?".
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:alTakruri wrote: Of course Africa's languages don't originate from dynastic times nor from Egypt. But is that what anyone is positing or are they just positing the relationship of Egyptic to families farther afield?
According to Wally "Black" languages of Africa are derived from dialects spoken in Egypt 1000 B.C.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Of course this is no substitute for CotonouByNight's excellent posts which after more than two years is finally answering rasol's question: "Is it possible to show examples of the above, or is it beyound the scope of what can be concisely demonstrated?".
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:alTakruri wrote: Of course Africa's languages don't originate from dynastic times nor from Egypt. But is that what anyone is positing or are they just positing the relationship of Egyptic to families farther afield?
According to Wally "Black" languages of Africa are derived from dialects spoken in Egypt 1000 B.C.
I don't understand your question or what you want me to find in that link. Why don't you just speak normal English so that everyone else can understand, it would be much more effective in terms of communication?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I never denied any genetic relationship between all African languages. Most linguist acknowledge that, even Greenberg!
What I do point out however is the erroneous belief that all African languages are those like Bantu somehow stem from an Egyptian or Nile Valley origin!!
Where has anyone especially the poster who started this thread said that? You seem to be reacting in an overemotional frame of mind that has inhibited you from comprehending what some of the posters here are stating. Which is relationships of certain words not deriving from.
And the question anyone who is reading this thread logically and unbiasly is thinking is why is that? Although KemsonReloaded has offered an intriging suggestion that merits closer intuitive examination.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: This isn't meant to be an exhaustive study, but one merely to show some interesting relations between "Bantu" and the Mdu Ntr in order to support the contention which fundamentally states that the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions...
^ As you can see the words of the one who started the topic were quite clear. And it seems the only one acting over-emotional and not logical is YOU. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is also apparent and obvious to anyone intelligent that this new thread by Wally is just a save-face for his embarassing debacle of a thread here in which he postulated Egyptian origins for the Tutsi.
Since it was shown by Rasol and others that the Tutis are NOT from northeast Africa (neither the Horn region nor the Nile Valley) but a Bantu people like their Hutu and Twa neighbors, he now tries to attribute Bantu origins in general to the Nile Valley!
The guy has to seriously get over this fallacious nonsense of attributing every African language and culture to Egyptians or Nile Valley peoples! It is ridiculous as well as, again, insulting to those cultures. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since it was shown by Rasol and others that the Tutis are NOT from northeast Africa (neither the Horn region nor the Nile Valley) but a Bantu people like their Hutu and Twa neighbors, he now tries to attribute Bantu origins in general to the Nile Valley!
That's a desperate ruse, that's exactly what he's condemned to do...pure desperation...the problem with Wally is that he parrots blindly Diop...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
By the way Wally, I notice you cite Hausa. You do realize that Hausa is NOT Niger-Congo but Afrasian, which means it does have close genetic relation to Egyptian whereas the other languages do not.
You have better luck using Hausa to compare with Egyptian than truly Niger-Congo languages.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Wally:
This isn't meant to be an exhaustive study, but one merely to show some interesting relations between "Bantu" and the Mdu Ntr in order to support the contention which fundamentally states that the languages of Black Africa comprise a genetic unity and are derived from Egyptian dialects spoken around Egypt before 1000 b.c. up to the Arab invasions... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ As you can see the words of the one who started the topic were quite clear. And it seems the only one acting over-emotional and not logical is YOU.
Who's contention? Is it stated.
Your reflexive emotional responses (as evident in your strange dependency on emoticons) should be tempered with a qualitive calmness. This would help you avoid such rash displays of comprehension misques.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is also apparent and obvious to anyone intelligent that this new thread by Wally is just a save-face for his embarassing debacle of a thread here in which he postulated Egyptian origins for the Tutsi.
Since it was shown by Rasol and others that the Tutis are NOT from northeast Africa (neither the Horn region nor the Nile Valley) but a Bantu people like their Hutu and Twa neighbors, he now tries to attribute Bantu origins in general to the Nile Valley!
The guy has to seriously get over this fallacious nonsense of attributing every African language and culture to Egyptians or Nile Valley peoples! It is ridiculous as well as, again, insulting to those cultures.
At least the member you target presents demonstrations to back up his points. Rather than attacks, wouldn't it be more constructive to prove counter demonstrations?
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
You are right. This point was recently proven in another ES Thread.
quote:Originally posted by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT: Djehuti: According to late Beja specialist Werner Vycichl, Beja has three ways of expressing plural, reduplication (not found often), last vowel shortening & suffixation of -a. The two former, although not based on the same exact pattern of Semitic, are clearly non-concatenative, hence dissimilar to Old Egyptian suffixation.
Chapter VI, pp. 88-89
code:
Some examples of Berber "broken" plural formation: aghiul "ass"; pl ighial asgass "year"; pl.isgassen ir'allen "arm"; pl. ir'allen illi "daughter"; issi "pl."
Again Berber is totally different from Egyptian: s3t "daughter"; pl. s3wt ib "heart"; pl. ibw
How can one claim that Hamito-Semitic does actually exist relying on this?
The dual is frequently used in Akkadian, Ugaritic & Arabic, which may suggest that it is only secondary in other Semitic languages.
code:
Akkadian: -aan (dative), een (genitive), iin (accusative); Ugaritic: -aami (nominative), eemi (genitive/accusative) Hebraic: -ayn Syriac: -En~-een (only found as a retention in two words) Ethiopian: -ee (only found in a few cases) Arabic: -aani(nominative) -ayni (genitive/accusative)
While Berber doesn't make grammatical use of dual, it seems to agree with Semitic in occurrences of natural pairs (suffixes -in,-en, -an for dual are also found in Semitic) :
code:
adar "foot" pl.idaren tit "eye" pl. allen aDalis "lip" pl. dilsan (Ghadamès) aDaluy "lip" pl. iDlay "lips" (Ahaggar)
Semitic languages originally marked three principal cases:
There is however a class of words whose both genitive and accusative are formed with the same suffix -a.
In Egyptian, Pharaonic and Coptic there are absolutely no traces of casual marking. Why would the most archaic synchrony of Egyptian have lost any trace of Proto-Hamito-Semitic as Akkadian (a language contemporary to Pharaonic Egyptian) did?
The truth is that Hamito-Semitic does not exist. This is a myth with no morphological basis. A myth that must be destroyed by the real science.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: [qb] There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
You are right. This point was recently proven in another ES Thread.
glose Semitic Egyptian Berber sun shmsh (common Semitic) r’, re tafukt year sn (Lihyanitic) rnpt rompE rompi asggas shaanaa (Hebrew) sanat (Arabic) place macom (Phoenician) +maqam bw, ma ida night Arabic layl grH, D3w iD Ethiopian leelit Hebrew luun, liin Ugaritic lyn name +sumum, samum rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn ism, isEm take ! Sabat ! (Akkadian) m, mi, mo ameZ ear sinn (Arabic) msDr ameZZugh sEn (Ethiopian) teeth Akkadian uzun Tst axs Assyrian uzan Hebrew ‘ozen Arabic ‘uDn Ethiopian ‘Ezn brother Akkadian axu sn, son g-ma, ait-ma (pl.) Ugaritic ax Hebrew ‘aaH Syriac ‘aHaa Arabic ‘ax Epigraphic South Arabian ‘x Ethiopian ‘Exw (labialized x) to enter Akkadian ‘rb ‘q, 3q, ook ekSem Hebrew ‘rb Syriac ‘rb Arabic Grb Epigraphic South Arabian Grb black ‘aswad (Arabic) km, kamE, kEmi isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen blood dam (common Semitic) snf, snfw, snof idammen beautiful Hasan (Arabic) nfr, nofre, nofri iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki eternity ‘almiin (Eastern Syriac) D.t, nHH, EnEh god il (Ugaritic) nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE rEbbi (Arabic Allah) soul Hebrew nepesh b3, bai RroH, laRuaH (pl.) Syriac napsha Arabic nafs Ethiopian nafs river naaru (Akkadian) itrw asif hand yd, yad (common Semitic) Dr.t, ‘ (« arm ») ufus, afus house bayit (Hebrew) pr tigemmi head +ra’sh common Semitic tp, apE, afE agayyu, ixf reeshu Akkadian roosh Hebrew ra’s Arabic
In conclusion, the results of a strict linguistic analysis are the following :
-There are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies, personal and relative pronouns.
-About verbal themes, the use of reduplication does not have the same extension in Egyptian and in Semitic.
-Also, Egyptian doesn’t have the prefixal conjugation found and the derived compound verbal themes found in Semitic.
-The verbal forms sDm.f and sDm.n.f don’t exist in Semitic.
-Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic : Egyptian m « as, like » vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ; Egyptian xr « upon, above », vs Akkadian ‘l, Ugaritic ‘l, Syriac ‘al, Hebrew ‘al, Arabic ‘ala, Ethiopian la’la « upon, above ». Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon »
-Inherited lexical that can hardly be borrowed from a language to another (see examples above) even in a situation of cultural linguistic dominance are different in Semitic, Egyptian and Berber. Cardinal numbers (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 100, 1000) are also much different in the three language groups.
Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth.
posted
Cotonou's compilations of Obenga's comparative grammatic analysis was far from showing that ancient Egyptian was not related to other Afrasan languages. In fact, while he makes light of it, Obenga notes grammatic correlations between certain languages from different sub-Afrasan families. Obenga mainly hangs onto the idea that there are some grammatic differences between languages from different sub-Afrasan families, which should be obvious, because they were placed into distinct sub-families for a reason to begin with. That though, doesn't preclude the basic language affinities shared across the superfamily. I have demonstrated strong *grammatic* correlations between certain languages from distinct sub-Afrasan languages, not merely lexicons whose connections may or may not be tentative. At the end of the day, request for Obenga's *exhaustive* grammatic and lexical comparative analysis to obtain *genetic* [linguistically] justification for his typological construct of Negro-African superfamily, separate from Tamazight, Semitic, and perhaps Khoisan was never followed up with.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are in 2007 and people are still arguing whether Ancient Egyptian is an Afrasian language, I'm wondering sometimes whether Diop was as worse as Eurocentric Egyptologists whose pollution of that Ancient African civilization(AE) is till corrupting simple minds like Wally and some other posters in this thread...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
LOL comming from someone who days ago thought Igbo, Yoruba and Wolof were Bantu languages. What's next Chinese and Mande languages are related as your mentor seems to love waving around?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
LOL comming from someone who days ago thought Igbo, Yoruba and Wolof were Bantu languages. What's next Chinese and Mande languages are related as your mentor seems to love waving around?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Cotonou's compilations of Obenga's comparative grammatic analysis was far from showing that ancient Egyptian was not related to other Afrasan languages. In fact, while he makes light of it, Obenga notes grammatic correlations between certain languages from different sub-Afrasan families. Obenga mainly hangs onto the idea that there are some grammatic differences between languages from different sub-Afrasan families, which should be obvious, because they were placed into distinct sub-families for a reason to begin with. That though, doesn't preclude the basic language affinities shared across the superfamily. I have demonstrated strong *grammatic* correlations between certain languages from distinct sub-Afrasan languages, not merely lexicons whose connections may or may not be tentative. At the end of the day, request for Obenga's *exhaustive* grammatic and lexical comparative analysis to obtain *genetic* [linguistically] justification for his typological construct of Negro-African superfamily, separate from Tamazight, Semitic, and perhaps Khoisan was never followed up with.
^ This is correct. Nor were they able to resolve the internal contradiction inherent in acknowleding the African origion of Semitic, Khoisan and Berber.... only to turn around and classify them as *non negro* languages.
Credit is due for the subtle dissembling necessary to mask this contradiction.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
LOL comming from someone who days ago thought Igbo, Yoruba and Wolof were Bantu languages. What's next Chinese and Mande languages are related as your mentor seems to love waving around?
Yes; possibly less fitting to the other two, my statement were made for good reasons which can be demonstrated. Many English definition define “Bantu” as word which means “people” in many Bantu languages. Upon researching, I discovered that rather than the specific word “Bantu” corresponding to “people”, as the English writers of this definition had suggested, it probably meant to describe various sounding nouns in Black African languages which shared similar sounding words for describing “people” or “humans” and these specialists were intrigued by sheer amount of similarities in different languages. These similar sounding words had varieties of root nouns such as “ntu” or “ndu”, “tu/du” in their word structures for describing people, person or humans. In the Igbo language for instance, “madu/ma-du” would mean “person”; and “ndu/n-du” would mean “life”. You provided no demonstrations showing why you thought Igbo, Yoruba or Wolof was not Bantu.
Even if I claimed any Black African language is Bantu, I and others capable of bottom-line fundamental demonstration and honest urge for learning and teaching, rather than trick based (ex: LOL icon detractors), are best qualified to correct any errors which may have been made, which will then be adopted immediately into our daily knowledge. Unfortunately, many detractors, or so-called ambassadors of academia, even after all the evidences have been presented, still consciously refuse to accept the truth and change their misuse of terms proven to be of error (ex: persistent in using non-existent idea of "Afriasian”). Even as some of them illogically claim that proving Black African languages are genetic related is insulting to African cultures, they fail to see they’re truly the insulting, solution lacking elements in these wonderful exercises of intellectual expansion. I believe when such persistence denials, in the face of axiomatic evidences, are met with matching persistent reminders of truth, it is only a natural process of correcting causes of imbalance.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I and others capable of bottom-line fundamental demonstration and honest urge for learning and teaching, rather than trick based (ex: LOL icon detractors), are best qualified to correct any errors which may have been made
^ translation: In love with listening to himself talk, while saying nothing.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ translation: In love with listening to himself talk, while saying nothing.
Is it just me or is Keith Richburg a member of EgyptSearch. Hey Keith, is that really you? Wassup ma doo? Still working on the wit huh? I'm Black too, don't shoot!
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ translation: In love with listening to himself talk, while saying nothing.
Is it just me or is Keith Richburg a member of EgyptSearch. Hey Keith, is that really you? Wassup ma doo? Still working on the wit huh? I'm Black too, don't shoot!
Do you consider this text below as a sentence someone can make any sense of??
Written by Kemsonreloaded:
and others capable of bottom-line fundamental demonstration and honest urge for learning and teaching, rather than trick based (ex: LOL icon detractors), are best qualified to correct any errors which may have been made
Eloge and 10& to anyone who can translate this gibeerish by Kemsonreloaded into English or anyother language!
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no need to start insulting me personally and bringing down the quality of topic presented here and demonstrated linguistically above, after the failures displayed by certain individuals frustrated by the lack of their abilities to directly challenge the presented facts. We can move on without the insults for it only reveals underlining aggravations of the attacking detractors.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by oadsnd_mf: Who's contention? Is it stated.
Obviously the thread author who stated that Bantu languages come from the Nile Valley, or do you have poor reading comprehension?
quote:Your reflexive emotional responses (as evident in your strange dependency on emoticons) should be tempered with a qualitive calmness. This would help you avoid such rash displays of comprehension misques.
I don't need emoticons to express the obvious that you and other are caught up in pseudo-historical nonsense in order to validate African history. Such a method is no different from the Eurocentrics who've plauged African history.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: At least the member you target presents demonstrations to back up his points. Rather than attacks, wouldn't it be more constructive to prove counter demonstrations?
LOL The demonstrations Clyde gives are nothing more than silly typological ones than anyone replicate with any language! Which is why you seem to forget that Clyde shows similar demonstrations between Mande, Tamil, Mandarin, and Japanese!
You obviously have a poor understanding of linguistics to fall for this little ruse.
quote:There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
And the flaws of such a linguistic construct were explained to you before, or do you not remember?? Even the very name "negro" is insulting. You do realize that Eurocentrics tried doing the same with not only European languages but other languages outside of Europe whom they associated with "caucasians". They called it 'Nostratic' which was a construct actually worse than Negro-Egyptien with a greater amount of flaws especially since it inculded Egyptian and other Afrasian languages. But at least the name wasn't Leuco(white)-Greek! LOL
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Cotonou's compilations of Obenga's comparative grammatic analysis was far from showing that ancient Egyptian was not related to other Afrasan languages. In fact, while he makes light of it, Obenga notes grammatic correlations between certain languages from different sub-Afrasan families. Obenga mainly hangs onto the idea that there are some grammatic differences between languages from different sub-Afrasan families, which should be obvious, because they were placed into distinct sub-families for a reason to begin with. That though, doesn't preclude the basic language affinities shared across the superfamily. I have demonstrated strong *grammatic* correlations between certain languages from distinct sub-Afrasan languages, not merely lexicons whose connections may or may not be tentative. At the end of the day, request for Obenga's *exhaustive* grammatic and lexical comparative analysis to obtain *genetic* [linguistically] justification for his typological construct of Negro-African superfamily, separate from Tamazight, Semitic, and perhaps Khoisan was never followed up with.
^ This is correct. Nor were they able to resolve the internal contradiction inherent in acknowleding the African origion of Semitic, Khoisan and Berber.... only to turn around and classify them as *non negro* languages.
Credit is due for the subtle dissembling necessary to mask this contradiction.
But....didn't work.
Correct, and correct.
But what do you expect from folks like Kemsonreloaded, Wally, and Clyde who are too consumed their own ideology that they refuse facts. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by oadsnd_mf: Who's contention? Is it stated.
Obviously the thread author who stated that Bantu languages come from the Nile Valley, or do you have poor reading comprehension?
quote:Your reflexive emotional responses (as evident in your strange dependency on emoticons) should be tempered with a qualitive calmness. This would help you avoid such rash displays of comprehension misques.
I don't need emoticons to express the obvious that you and other are caught up in pseudo-historical nonsense in order to validate African history. Such a method is no different from the Eurocentrics who've plauged African history.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: At least the member you target presents demonstrations to back up his points. Rather than attacks, wouldn't it be more constructive to prove counter demonstrations?
LOL The demonstrations Clyde gives are nothing more than silly typological ones than anyone replicate with any language! Which is why you seem to forget that Clyde shows similar demonstrations between Mande, Tamil, Mandarin, and Japanese!
You obviously have a poor understanding of linguistics to fall for this little ruse.
quote:There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
And the flaws of such a linguistic construct were explained to you before, or do you not remember?? Even the very name "negro" is insulting. You do realize that Eurocentrics tried doing the same with not only European languages but other languages outside of Europe whom they associated with "caucasians". They called it 'Nostratic' which was a construct actually worse than Negro-Egyptien with a greater amount of flaws especially since it inculded Egyptian and other Afrasian languages. But at least the name wasn't Leuco(white)-Greek! LOL
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Cotonou's compilations of Obenga's comparative grammatic analysis was far from showing that ancient Egyptian was not related to other Afrasan languages. In fact, while he makes light of it, Obenga notes grammatic correlations between certain languages from different sub-Afrasan families. Obenga mainly hangs onto the idea that there are some grammatic differences between languages from different sub-Afrasan families, which should be obvious, because they were placed into distinct sub-families for a reason to begin with. That though, doesn't preclude the basic language affinities shared across the superfamily. I have demonstrated strong *grammatic* correlations between certain languages from distinct sub-Afrasan languages, not merely lexicons whose connections may or may not be tentative. At the end of the day, request for Obenga's *exhaustive* grammatic and lexical comparative analysis to obtain *genetic* [linguistically] justification for his typological construct of Negro-African superfamily, separate from Tamazight, Semitic, and perhaps Khoisan was never followed up with.
^ This is correct. Nor were they able to resolve the internal contradiction inherent in acknowleding the African origion of Semitic, Khoisan and Berber.... only to turn around and classify them as *non negro* languages.
Credit is due for the subtle dissembling necessary to mask this contradiction.
But....didn't work.
Correct, and correct.
But what do you expect from folks like Kemsonreloaded, Wally, and Clyde who are too consumed their own ideology that they refuse facts.
You're such a hypocrite. You failed to mention Cotonou who demonstrated with linguistic evidence that the Afrasian languages do not exist.
.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded: [qb] There is no such thing as "Afriasian". It doesn't exist. The highlighted Greenberg based classification was based, as corrected by Dr. Theophile Obenga, is actually "Negro-Egyptian".
You are right. This point was recently proven in another ES Thread.
glose Semitic Egyptian Berber sun shmsh (common Semitic) r’, re tafukt year sn (Lihyanitic) rnpt rompE rompi asggas shaanaa (Hebrew) sanat (Arabic) place macom (Phoenician) +maqam bw, ma ida night Arabic layl grH, D3w iD Ethiopian leelit Hebrew luun, liin Ugaritic lyn name +sumum, samum rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn ism, isEm take ! Sabat ! (Akkadian) m, mi, mo ameZ ear sinn (Arabic) msDr ameZZugh sEn (Ethiopian) teeth Akkadian uzun Tst axs Assyrian uzan Hebrew ‘ozen Arabic ‘uDn Ethiopian ‘Ezn brother Akkadian axu sn, son g-ma, ait-ma (pl.) Ugaritic ax Hebrew ‘aaH Syriac ‘aHaa Arabic ‘ax Epigraphic South Arabian ‘x Ethiopian ‘Exw (labialized x) to enter Akkadian ‘rb ‘q, 3q, ook ekSem Hebrew ‘rb Syriac ‘rb Arabic Grb Epigraphic South Arabian Grb black ‘aswad (Arabic) km, kamE, kEmi isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen blood dam (common Semitic) snf, snfw, snof idammen beautiful Hasan (Arabic) nfr, nofre, nofri iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki eternity ‘almiin (Eastern Syriac) D.t, nHH, EnEh god il (Ugaritic) nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE rEbbi (Arabic Allah) soul Hebrew nepesh b3, bai RroH, laRuaH (pl.) Syriac napsha Arabic nafs Ethiopian nafs river naaru (Akkadian) itrw asif hand yd, yad (common Semitic) Dr.t, ‘ (« arm ») ufus, afus house bayit (Hebrew) pr tigemmi head +ra’sh common Semitic tp, apE, afE agayyu, ixf reeshu Akkadian roosh Hebrew ra’s Arabic
In conclusion, the results of a strict linguistic analysis are the following :
-There are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies, personal and relative pronouns.
-About verbal themes, the use of reduplication does not have the same extension in Egyptian and in Semitic.
-Also, Egyptian doesn’t have the prefixal conjugation found and the derived compound verbal themes found in Semitic.
-The verbal forms sDm.f and sDm.n.f don’t exist in Semitic.
-Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic : Egyptian m « as, like » vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ; Egyptian xr « upon, above », vs Akkadian ‘l, Ugaritic ‘l, Syriac ‘al, Hebrew ‘al, Arabic ‘ala, Ethiopian la’la « upon, above ». Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon »
-Inherited lexical that can hardly be borrowed from a language to another (see examples above) even in a situation of cultural linguistic dominance are different in Semitic, Egyptian and Berber. Cardinal numbers (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 100, 1000) are also much different in the three language groups.
Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth.
quote:You failed to mention Cotonou who demonstrated with linguistic evidence that the Afrasian languages do not exist.
Contonou demonstrated some distinction within the various sub-groupings of Afrisan, as might be found within Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofan and Khoisan langauges as well. It was not shown that Berber and Semitic languages were unrelated, to either each other, or to other languages of Africa. Nor was it explained how this could be so - if you acknowledge that Berber and Semitic are African to begin with.
What is evidenced by things like this....
Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic :
1) Egyptian m « as, like »
2) vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ;
3) Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon »
...is merely distinction between Mdw Ntr, Berber and Semitic, which are three distinct langauge families within Afrisan phylum.
So how does this 'per se' contradict the existence of said phylum?
Likewise, Zulu has njinga as/like.
How would this demonstrate the existence of Negro Egyptian which links mdw ntr to Bantu but distinguishes it from Berber and Semitic?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ YEAH! I am not a hypocrite, but apparently Clyde is clueless or has poor comprehension skills.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Obviously the thread author who stated that Bantu languages come from the Nile Valley, or do you have poor reading comprehension?...But what do you expect from folks like Kemsonreloaded, Wally, and Clyde who are too consumed their own ideology that they refuse facts.
As it is said, herein lies the rub. There are two schools of thought here on this subject:
1) the Static view - it follows this line of thought,
quote: a common area of origin of the Bantu peoples, with the evidence pointing strongly to the region of present-day Cameroon-Nigeria border. It is thought that they migrated across the country eastward, across the southern Sudan, and then south, past the great lakes of the northeast.
One then, has to believe that these peoples suddenly, or gradually, sprang from NOWHERE and into existence in Cameroon-Nigeria! These peoples, had never arrived from anywhere else on the continent!
2) the Process view - it follows this line of thought,
quote:African history began with human history. The original locus of the African peoples was in the Great Lakes regions of Central/East Africa. It was here that the first languages emerged and with the subsequent migrations of these peoples over millenniums, distinct languages and dialects emerged and differentiation occurred. And, it is through the comparisons of these languages, we can determine the areas in which any particular African language had previously occupied. Also, from these studies, we are able to determine that at a more recent period, a large majority of the African peoples, inhabited the collective area of the Nile Valley region, and would also, subsequently migrate from this new locus, back into the interior regions...
Exception which proves the rule (ie, the Process view)
The great exception which proves this rule is the occurrence of an isolated language, such as Basque, which shows no demonstrable genetic relationship with other languages (which has also been questioned).
We, here, have been trying to demonstrate the genetic relationship of the African languages to these static viewers, who consistently refuse to see this process! (One of these persons here doesn't even comprehend that "Bantu" is a sub-family of "Niger-Congo!") The discussion then degrades into simplistic and evasive name calling, which is, nor ever will be an argument...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And, it is through the comparisons of these languages, we can determine the areas in which any particular African language had previously occupied.
What areas of the Nile Valley were previously occupied by Bantu speakers, proto-Bantu speakers, or Proto-Niger Congo speakers?
What is your chronology for the spread of said langauges from the Nile Valley?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cotonou didn't demonstrate anything. Cotonou presented excerpts from Obenga relative to Obenga's claims about language. Most have concluded it's slack, however it is what Obenga demonstrated and it cannot reasonably be said that Obenga lacked explicit demonstrations for his decision to exclude Semitic and Berber fron his Black-Egyptian superphyla. What can be said is that one does not accept his demonstration as conclusively proving his point.
Cotonou didn't demonstrate anything. Cotonou presented excerpts from Obenga relative to Obenga's claims about language. Most have concluded it's slack, however it is what Obenga demonstrated and it cannot reasonably be said that Obenga lacked explicit demonstrations for his decision to exclude Semitic and Berber fron his Black-Egyptian superphyla...
...pending elaboration. However, based on what has *thus far been presented*, it wouldn't be unreasonable to entertain such a conclusion. To know where Semitic and Tamazight stand vis-a-vis the "Black Egyptian" superphylum, one would not only have to see extensive grammatic, phonetic, and lexical comparative analysis between Semitic, Tamazight and sub-phylum languages of the "Black-Egyptian" superfamily, but also that between the said sub-phyla of "Black-Egyptian".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic