Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
Problem with that is connotations. Although Proto-Semitic is a language family, the term Semitic (as you know) was coined based on the Biblical description of nations in and surrounding Europe, Egypt, Africa and Asia. Cush (Ethiopia) is based firmly in the region of the sons of Ham (the African nations), thus it does not make logical sense for the language to be labelled Semitic. I understand your point regarding the related languages (moreso Amharic, than Geéz itself), but perhaps what may be required is a re-classification, or a partition within the language families to allow for the fact that the language is fully African, the influence was from Africa to Asia, and not the other was around. Semite acquisition of the language had (little or) no influence on the construction of the language, as seems to be supported by the surrounding studies (in as much as I've looked into it). Reply appreciated.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I take it Philips is the editor of a book containing the given passage from Keita? Also, can you please post the footnotes as the article is incomplete without them.
Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
S.O.Y. Keita Afro-Asiatic Speakers: An Exploration
taken from the book,
Writing African History By John Edward Philips Published by Boydell & Brewer, 2006
posted
OK, but I can't see "Semite acquisition" of Semitic. Without Semitic languages there are no Semites -- speakers of Semitic languages.
Semitic does not equate to "sons of Shem." Canaanitic is a Semitic but the biblical Canaanites were of the "sons of Hham."
Elam was of the "sons of Shem" but the language of the Elamites was not a Semitic language.
I can agree that Semitic stands in need of a name change and also agree to the proposed nomenclature Erythraic as that geographic body borders Ethiopia and Arabia the two homelands of primal speakers of the living Semitic languages.
Retaining Semitic is akin to the once usage of Hamitic.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
Problem with that is connotations. Although Proto-Semitic is a language family, the term Semitic (as you know) was coined based on the Biblical description of nations in and surrounding Europe, Egypt, Africa and Asia. Cush (Ethiopia) is based firmly in the region of the sons of Ham (the African nations), thus it does not make logical sense for the language to be labelled Semitic. I understand your point regarding the related languages (moreso Amharic, than Geéz itself), but perhaps what may be required is a re-classification, or a partition within the language families to allow for the fact that the language is fully African, the influence was from Africa to Asia, and not the other was around. Semite acquisition of the language had (little or) no influence on the construction of the language, as seems to be supported by the surrounding studies (in as much as I've looked into it). Reply appreciated.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, thank you for the welcomes, I really appreciate it... I was a patient observer for near a month whilst your registration was closed, and I've been quietly observing the very strong Egyptological intellects on this site. Very impressed and look forward to doing so real work with some of you in the near future.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: quote:''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously.
Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction.
^ No.
That isn't all he did so you are not being entirely honest.
We seem to have be drawn into a situation of nit-picking here, and that is exactly what I didn't want to happen. I'll just clear up the misunderstanding and be done, I respect a lot of your views, and as such won't attack them, just clarify my stance.
I never projected a statement that could be classified 'entirely' honest or 'entirely' dishonest. The term 'at large' suggests a majority quantity, not an absolute position.
An example that illustrates what I'm saying is when Diop says of Maspero's work "This thesis is the masterpiece of explanations based on pure imagination; it rests solely on emotion. I have cited it only for its ingenuity and determination to succed at any cost..." He may not have 'categorised' but certainly 'classified' Maspero as a racist and as a result he (Maspero) was never used for meaningful critique or quoted with seriousness, but only to offer a debunk/rebuttal and highlight the sheer desperation the Historical community had become regarding issues of 'race' in Ancient Egypt.
Also, I did say 'to a large degree' to offer a delimiter, as we all know that Diop was subject to the studies of racists as no 'afrocentric' (or I should say 'honestly approached') studies had gone before him. Therefore, this paragraph was slightly unnecessary as it was based on the assumption that I said or implied Diop NEVER used the works of racists in his studies, and I didn't.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] ...and then trying to attack "racist authors", rather than deal with specific merits or demerits of an *argument.*[/b]
I didn't 'attack' anyone, I made a statement of disapproval to a stance that was being suggested. Perhaps the term 'racialy motivated' you drew exception to. Fair enough, I have always prefered clear communication over implication.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] This involves citing Egyptologists where he agreed with them, which needs no external rationale, and regardless of whether he disagreed with them on other points.[/b]
We totally agree here, the disagreement is only based on how the citations are utilised. When a study is so biased/poor, should it be only be referred to for debunking, as Diop demonstrated?
In the same way Diop used materials that he deemed were the most objectively approached to prove his claims, I too am at liberty to exercise the same premise, discarding materials that I deem to be agenda-driven, and focus on studies that I deem to be approached with greater objectivity. It will be impossible to find a study that is wholly agenda free, but that is where one has the option of exercising selectiveness, as Diop and most other scholars do in their approach to synthesising sources. I said:
quote:My stance is that people approaching Egyptology objectively need to carry out their own research, or let the research of more objective Egyptologists take precedence.
Thats all. Standing by what I said, I understand your point and why you replied. Thanks for the reply.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never projected a statement that could be classified 'entirely' honest or 'entirely' dishonest. The term 'at large' suggests a majority quantity, not an absolute position.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can you explain to me why if Ge'ez is indeed proto-Semitic that would preclude its birth and development in Africa?
It seems to me that if anything that if Ge'ez is proto-Semitic and Ethiopia has the greatest number of Semitic languages that the birth (Ge'ez) and the development (Ethiopia's plethora of Semitic languages) adds up to nothing else than Semitic being African.
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
"It is always important to be wary of the traps of circular reasoning."
-> Semitic means *not African*, so, to say a language is proto-semitic, is to imply that it is not African.
The same is true for Berber.
So we must prove that Egyptian is unrelated to semitic and Berber, that Ethiopic is not semitic, and that Berber are not African.
^ Note the above is an example of - fallacy of circular reasoning.
Berber is uniformly acknowledged to be and African language [after all, it exists nowhere else, nor does it have any non African relatives]
Semitic is generally aknowledged to have been born in Africa by *most* linguists.
Therefore there is no need to de semiticize Ethiopian languages, or de Africanize Berber.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ehret's spelling is Afrasan which to me still has too much Asia in it and why I proposed Afrisan as a spelling that injects more of the sound of AFRIca into the descriptor.
Which reminds me... Are there still anymore scholars arguing for a name change? I remember one not very popular name used was the Erythrean language phylum as in the Erythrean (Red) Sea. Perhaps the Saharo-Erythrean language family would be more accurate(?)
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Note the above is an example of - fallacy of circular reasoning.
Berber is uniformly acknowledged to be and African language [after all, it exists nowhere else, nor does it have any non African relatives]
Semitic is generally aknowledged to have been born in Africa by *most* linguists.
Therefore there is no need to de semiticize Ethiopian languages, or de Africanize Berber.
As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous. I earlier refuted the classification of 'afroasiatic' citing Berber as one of the language families that is clearly African and NOT Asian. Berber needs no Africanisation as it thoroughly African. If the Berber language is birthed in Africa (and it is) where does the dispute lie? I don't understand how criticising the terminology of proto-Semitic leads one to the necessity of deAfricanising the Berber... could you explain further?
Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further. Thanks. As far as I have seen one has to do much ''reading between the lines'' to realise this in a few scattered examples.
From my evaluation, if current language descriptors remain unchallenged, EVERY language of note of the African languages from South of the horn, right the way around to NorthWest Africa are classified with some kind of 'Asian' connection, in spite of how African they are (many were not spoken outside the continent). This would be fine if the application of this terminology was treated mutually in Asian languages, but the compliment is never returned. None of the Semitic languages are classified 'Afro Asian' or 'proto Ethiopic'. Even 'Hamitic' was not applied outside of Africa's borders, so why do the Asian 'prefixes' get a monopoly over the most important African linguistic developments of antiquity. This terminology must be challenged, as petty as it may seem. It's clearly a residual attitude from Eurocentric scholarship from the same school of thought that suggests the African continent never created anything meaningfully without Semitic (caucasoid (to use THEIR terminology)) or European influence. Much like the whole Mesopotamia-Egypt debate. Much of these classifications were created under misconceptions and prejudice regarding the Asia-Africa relationship, but it is fastly being acknowledged that most African languages were developed indepedant of Asian infludence, and that African scripts actually predate many of the Semite scripts (much as the case with Geéz and the now redundant Sabaen link). Following this there should be a reclassifcation as the fact remains, if these languages have been acknowledged as being birthed and developed on African soil, by Africans, where does the classification Semitic find its justification. Reclassification is certainly required as far as I know, language classifications should be based on the origin's of language.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ good observations re the residual Eurocentric scholarship reflected in "Afro-Asiatic". Hope you don't get baited into a semantic argument some in here are good at.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further.
This was acknowledged in the parent post.
The Afro-Asiatic language family seems to have originated in, or near the horn or the Sahara. Linguists, while disagreeing on details construct family phylogenies that may be suggestive of successive speech communities. The development of the current members of AfroAsiatic passed through several stages of language diversification. One suggested construction postulates that common Afro-Asiatic diverged initially into Omotic and another group leading to the remainder of the family. This latter, in turn, split into Cushitic and a speech community that develops into Chadic and a group called "Boreafrasian". Eventually Egyptian (and some extinct related languages) Berber, and Semitic emerge from Boreafrasian. --S.O.Y Keita
You can also read this....
quote: WHC: You describe two other groups. One of them is the Afrasans. Can you talk about them for a moment?
Ehret: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians.
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Another thing about the Afrasans: their religious beliefs. Anciently, each local group had its own supreme deity. This is called "henotheism." In this kind of religion, you have your own god to whom you show your allegiance. But you realize that other groups have their own deities. The fact that they have deities different from yours doesn't mean their deities don't exist.
This kind of belief still exists. It's fading, maybe on its last legs, in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family. Way up in the mountains, they have this henotheism. They have a deity of their clan, or their small group of closely related clans. They have their priest-chief who has to see to the rites of that deity.
We see the same kind of thing in ancient Egypt. If we go to there, we discover that the Egyptian gods began as local gods. With Egyptian unification, we move from this henotheism to polytheism. To unify Egypt, after all, you have to co-opt the loyalty of local groups and recognize their gods. We have no direct evidence, but it's certainly implied by the things we learn about the gods in the written records we do have.
20
WHC: You seem to be suggesting that the Semitic monotheism Jewish, Christian and Islamic monotheism descends from African models. Is that fair?
Ehret: Yeah, actually it is. Look at the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It's not like the Muslim creed, which is "There is no God but God." It's doesn't say "there is no god but Yahweh, and Moses is his prophet." It is an admittance that there are other gods. It is an example of henotheism. And the Hebrew tribes are like the Omati clan groups. The tribes are clans writ larger. Like the Omati clans, they track their ancestry back ten or fifteen generations to a common ancestor. And these common ancestors were twelve brothers. (Actually, there are thirteen. They have to turn two of them, Ephraim and Manasseh, into half tribes, because thirteen wasn't a good number. I always loved that. There are really thirteen tribes, but you have to combine two of them).
The Canaanite cities have an alternative Semitic structure: polytheism. There's Astarte and Baal and the various gods that you'll find in South Arabia. So it looks like in the early Semitic world, you have two coexisting religions. You have polytheism among the ones who are really more urbanized. Then you have henotheistic groups.
What I see here is that earlier Middle Eastern polytheism is influencing Semitic religion. After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area. So they're going to have to accommodate. Some groups, maybe ones who live in peripheries, in areas with lower population densities, may be able to impose the henotheistic religion they arrived with.
21
WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Or reference this thread which stays on top of the board....
quote:Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further.
-> After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
posted
See the thread Narmer Menes broached on language for the url to a tree of Erythraic languages. Iirc it lists Semitic as Boreafrasian or some such. I have no idea what 'Bore' is supposed to mean. But following the tree it looks like Semitic is in a line that would allow labeling it a North East Erythraic.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ehret's spelling is Afrasan which to me still has too much Asia in it and why I proposed Afrisan as a spelling that injects more of the sound of AFRIca into the descriptor.
Which reminds me... Are there still anymore scholars arguing for a name change? I remember one not very popular name used was the Erythrean language phylum as in the Erythrean (Red) Sea. Perhaps the Saharo-Erythrean language family would be more accurate(?)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: See the thread Narmer Menes broached on language for the url to a tree of Erythraic languages. Iirc it lists Semitic as Boreafrasian or some such. I have no idea what 'Bore' is supposed to mean. But following the tree it looks like Semitic is in a line that would allow labeling it a North East Erythraic.
I believe 'bore' here is the Greek word for 'north' as in Boreas the north wind or auroro borealis the northern lights. So basically Boreafrasian is northernafrasian and so falls in line with Carleton T. Hodge's theory as well for a northerly division from which Berber, Semitic, and Egyptian. So I guess the southerly division would be Omotic, Chadic, and Cushitic.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, the paper Charles cited was written by him. What about him?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why yes! It did make me think of Hyperboreans, the furthest north people in Greek ethnic mythology.
I'll have to take a look at the tree and a map to see if the bore prefix makes any relative sense for all the languages it delineates.
But as a group exercise what would you all propose to replace Semitic as a label?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: See the thread Narmer Menes broached on language for the url to a tree of Erythraic languages. Iirc it lists Semitic as Boreafrasian or some such. I have no idea what 'Bore' is supposed to mean. But following the tree it looks like Semitic is in a line that would allow labeling it a North East Erythraic.
I believe 'bore' here is the Greek word for 'north' as in Boreas the north wind or auroro borealis the northern lights. So basically Boreafrasian is northernafrasian and so falls in line with Carleton T. Hodge's theory as well for a northerly division from which Berber, Semitic, and Egyptian. So I guess the southerly division would be Omotic, Chadic, and Cushitic.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What's wrong with the label Semitic? If it is to be changed, the only thing that comes to mind is Afro-asiatic with the name of the phylum being something else entirely.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neat; then it shall be, Afro-North Rift Valley super language phylum as an entry for viable candidacy.
The "Semitic" term issue aside, the "Asiatic" in "Afro-Asiatic" has the effect of over-emphasizing Asia's role in the language complex, given that Asia is apparently a gigantic landmass, with the Afrisan derivatives being limited to just the Great Rift region. Thus originating in Africa, this language phylum spreads its wings to only as far as part of the Great Rift Valley on the other side of the Red Sea. Though generally counted as part of Asia in "Western" discourse, the Great Rift areas across the Red sea really more closely lean towards Africa geologically, culturally and even politically. The case can also be made that populations in this area are generally more genetically closer to Africans than those further away.
The "Rift Valley" or "Great Rift Valley" moniker addresses not only the geographical issue, but also the "Semitic" nick end of it.
Between say, "Afro-North Rift Valley" (Afro-Northern Rift Valley) and "Saharo-North Rift Valley" (Saharo-Northern Rift Valley) which is a better candidate?
^Why any consideration for the 'Sahara' at all? I mean technically, Afrisan languages are spoken both on the Sahara and in areas below the Sahara, in east and west Africa. But its spread westward on the continent, would have likely come about via the former wet-Saharan belt corridor.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it you're proposing Saharo-Northern Rift replace Afrisan. This is good because Asia doesn't have a damn thing to do with the super-phylum at all in the least and Afrisan retains the 's' of Asia.
Seeing that the speakers of this superphylum are all indigenous to the northern Great Rift Valley and the Sahara -- including its periphery to Lake Tschad, the Nile, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic -- it's the perfect geographic complement to Niger-Congo although it conflicts somewhat with Nilo-Saharan -- but 'Saharan' in that instance does not include the periphery. And yes the island of Malta is overlooked in the Saharo-Northern Rift label but that's just a tiny forgiveable oversight.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well yes, I'm proposing Saharo-Northern Rift as another possible candidate, but I also wanted some opinion(s) on which would be a better fit of the two proposed: that is, "Afro-Northern Rift" or "Saharo-Northern Rift"?
I realize that Saharo in the "Saharo-Northern Rift" doesn't immediately speak to all the geographical 'peripheries' where the Afrisan language may well be spoken, but it is proposed for the reasons stated in my last post: that is to say, the major corridors for its historical or rather, pre-historic expansions. The Sahara would have proven to be a major corridor for its westward expansion on the continent; whereas East Africa is where the language phylum likely first emerged -- in the Northern Rift Valley region, and spread thereof across the Red Sea.
The "Afro-Northern Rift" speaks more to the general geographical reach of the Afrisan phylum than the former above, in that "Afro" compensates for any other areas where the language phylum mainly exists outside of the Northern Great Rift areas.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saharo-Erythrean-Rift family? LOL I know it's long by why not make it longer than Indo-European, as the family is much older and much more historically extensive.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't think any of these names can replace Semitic, nor should they.
Semitic at least has the advantage of being a term rooted in the language family itself, like Tamashek with regards to "Berber", or Medu Nechter with regard to "Ancient EGyptians".
It is superior to Saharo-Erythrean-Rift.
Aside from being a mouthful of mush, Ertythrea is a *Greek* word meaning red. [red sea is presumably what you are going after here?]
I have to admit, I'm completely lost as to what this term would be trying to accomplish?
I do agree that we want a viable means of emphasising the African origin of the Afrisan language family.
I don't know that you can justly - completely eliminate Asia either, after all, some of these langauges - Akadian, Hebrew.... are Asian, even if derived from African langauges.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ I don't think any of these names can replace Semitic, nor should they.
While one may not necessarily like my proposals, I do think Semitic should be replaced. Semitic is rooted in the Biblical term, from where it became associated with a non-African groups of people by European scholars, that is to say "Semites".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
To Rasol: The name I proposed in my last post was for the whole language phylum. As you can see the etymology is rooted solely in geography 'Saharo-Erythrean-Rift' describes the Sahara, Red Sea, and Rift which extends up to Syria-- all of which describes the basic expansion routes of Afrasian speakers. I just figure it should be somewhat like Indo-European except longer.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it, if someone were to say that the 'Semitic' descriptive should not be an issue, then that same one should not have any issues with "Hamito-Semitic", the earlier descriptive given to the language family in question. Of course, the 'Hamito' end of it, implicates the Hamitic hypothesis. Hamites too, like Semites, is rooted in biblical jargon, but Eurocentrist scholars ran off with the term and applied it in bio-anthropological discourse; in some cases, we've seen the disastrous consequences of the Hamitic myth in European imperialism. Here, whereas Hamites were supposedly hybridized "Negroes", Semites were considered to be "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The earlier rational of "Hamito-Semitic", is the presumed notion that while these folks were distinct, that is to say -- Hamites and Semites, their language were somehow related; Why not?...after all, the rationale was that Hamites partly descended from "non-African" groups from across the Red Sea. The Semitic end of the language family was initially believed to be of "non-African" origin, amongst these "non-African" Semites. If "Hamites" can be dropped, why should "Semites" not be dropped as well? However, if the rationale is that "Afro-Asiatic", as used today, is a linguistic construct, and that Semitic too is the same, well hey, "Hamito-Semitic" too was a linguistic construct in its day; why have issue with it?
As for 'Saharo-Erythrean-Rift', this is my opinion on it: Why the invocation of "Erythrean"? The Great Rift Valley already includes the areas across the Red Sea from Africa.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^ I don't think any of these names can replace Semitic, nor should they.
While one may not necessarily like my proposals, I do think Semitic should be replaced. Semitic is rooted in the Biblical term, from where it became associated with a non-African groups of people by European scholars, that is to say "Semites".
Indeed, it does derive from biblical reference. Also, the simple fact that when one is accused of being an anti-Semite, one immediately thinks of being against Jewish people. I once even heard someone say Arabs were anti-Semites etc etc.. So I do agree that a new name that ties it to the land where it originated would better suit this branch. Clear up the confusion.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer, alTakruri, Djehuti: In regard to your discussion about renaming Afrasian, (apparently White) French West Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin and his team now use the term "Ethio-Tchadic" to refer to this phylum, on the basis of a proposal once made by Somalian linguist M. Diriye Abdullahi.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
^ Yes, Obenga did.
->
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Regarding Semitic being acknowledged as 'birthed in Africa', I haven't come accross any such acknowledgement, so I would appreciate a source so I could look into that further.
-> After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area.
posted
Berbers are Africans of European origin as proven by Diop. The grammar of their language and vocabulary point to a European genesis for the speakers of this language. You may hate Diop and what he stands for but no one has yet to falsify his evidence that the Egyptians were Black and the Berber were "Northerners" who came from Europe. The 1) grammar of the Berber language,2) general unintelligibility between Berber dialects and 3) mixed vocabulary of the Berber language betray their European origin just like the Afrikaaner language of the Boers whos settled South Africa and Namibia.
The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years.
Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a , like neuter nouns in Latin. Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69).
The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and grammar indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin.
.
This is easy to explain, Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
Having a population of ancient "white" Africans, i.e., the Berbers helped perpetuate the myth that North Africa was always inhabited by whites and the only Black North Africans were the Haritin the former slaves of the superior Berber people. This is typified by Fontanes who wrote: " In Egypt the Berber type is too mixed. According to this theory, the African Berber from the west, the brown Libyan, settled in the valley of the new Nile; but almost immediately, or shortly afterwards , an invasion of Europeans hybridized the North African Libyan. This Libyan mixed-blood "with white skin and blue eyes" may have modified the early Egyptians. By his European blood , this Egyptian could be related to the Indo-European race and to the Aryan. "(Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (1974)p.64).
Diop believes that the Berbers got their name from African people because they were not native to Africa. Diop wrote: "Moreover, the root Bar, in Wolof, means to speak rapidly, and Bar-Bar would designate a people that speaks an unknown language, therefore a foreign people" (p.55). He adds that "As a result of this hypothesis [Berbers found Egyptian civilization), efforts have been made to relate the Berber and Egyptian languages by claiming that the Berber is the descendant of the Libyan. But Berber is a strange tongue that can be related to all kinds of languages" (p.68).
Wow! Its interesting that now we have Germanic speaking people at both extremes of Africa: North Africa Berber and South Africa Afrikaans. Ain't History a Bitch.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
The Explorer, alTakruri, Djehuti: In regard to your discussion about renaming Afrasian, (apparently White) French West Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin and his team now use the term "Ethio-Tchadic" to refer to this phylum, on the basis of a proposal once made by Somalian linguist M. Diriye Abdullahi.
Midogbe, the problem I instantly see in that term, is that it assumes "Ethiopia" to be the place of origin for Afrasan, or presumably that it emerged amongst populations that now make up the modern nation of Ethiopia. While it is certainly plausible, it is not unequivocally so in all cases, especially where examination of sub-phyla is concerned. Some theorize that it could well have also emerged in the Sahara, before diversifying further in areas further south. I also understand that the "Ethio" in "Ethio-Tchadic" would have presumably accounted for the Semitic branch as well, which I imagine, the author assumes emerged in Ethiopian populations; but what about a phylum like say "Berber"/Tamazight, which is virtually absent amongst Ethiopian populations, or say, the defunct Ancient Egyptian? Neither of the latter are known to have been spoken amongst Ethiopian populations, or belong to the Chadic sub-phylum. While it is certainly plausible that proto-Afrasan ultimately emerged amongst the ancestors of groups that now make up Ethiopia, and on that premise, a descriptive of "Ethio" would have been reasonably appropriate, it can't be helped but to see that the descriptive "Ethio-Tchadic" also takes into account the Chadic, which is an Afrasan sub-phylum, but not necessarily the likes of Tamazight and Ancient Egyptian, which too, are Afrasan sub-phyla. By doing so, the "Ethio-Tchadic" descriptive assumes the sub-phylum to not be of Ethiopian origin, but doesn't give the same treatment to the other aforementioned sub-phyla, which too, are not deemed to be of Ethiopian origin.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
i relate the fact that Berber is and African language, which you fail to dispute.
you counter by accussing me of 'hatred' of Diop, which you hope will distract from and so hide the *lack of proof for -your- claims* that Berber langauge is not African.
logical fallacy is the hand maiden of fake scholarship.
come again with evidence please....if you have any.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years.
^ based on genetics, the following is true.
* most Berber males are of haplotype E which is indigenous to Africa, and *not* to Europe.
* Berber females vary radically, dependant upon the population, some are primary of African origin, and some are Eurasian, since Berber male are native to Africa, and their langauges are related to other African languages, and so also native.... and certainly not Indo European, the real question is when and where Eurasian female lineages found in coastal Berber derive.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain
^ Berber langauges and lineages far predate the 5 century.
quote:Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
^ True, but this argument is deflated by both genetics which shows the African origin of the Pn2 clade. [lineages of most male Africans], and by linguistics, which shows the East African origin of the entire langauge phylum under discussion in this thread.
The context in which you cite Diop, is pre PN2 clade, and pre aknolwedgement of the African origin of "Afro-Asiatic", therefore your citation is outdated.
ps - i doubt Diop would agree -today- with much of what you contend.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain
^ Berber langauges and lineages far predate the 5 century.
quote:Europeans early used the Berbers as examples of the ancient "whites" that lived in North Africa, in their Eurocentric effort to make the Egyptians "brown skinned whites".
^ True, but this argument is deflated by both genetics which shows the African origin of the Pn2 clade. [lineages of most male Africans], and by linguistics, which shows the East African origin of the entire langauge phylum under discussion in this thread.
The context in which you cite Diop, is pre PN2 clade, and pre aknolwedgement of the African origin of "Afro-Asiatic", therefore your citation is outdated.
ps - i doubt Diop would agree -today- with much of what you contend.
Please post the linguistic evidence of Berber language spoken in Africa before Vandal conquest.
Cite any article that supports this claim with specific linguistic examples dating back to the period.
quote: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st . Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori,
^ even if this or the reverse is considered so, it neither proves that Berber originate in Europe, nor that Germanic originates in Africa.
again, that you rely on such a spurious form of reason, tainted by confirmation bias, which seeks tidbits of supporting 'evidence' while ignoring all countervailing evidence, [in ancient egyptian feminine nouns also end in t or st, example Km.st = kemsit = Black lady] is why your linguistic works remain marginal.
The Berber speakers have been in contact with Semitic speakers for many years. As a result, they have adopted many Semitic terms into their language.
Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots. Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic, please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic