posted
Ah, serius discussion has lured you back I see!
I haven't read Abdullahi on this one point but Ethio-Tchadic seems a bit limited in geographic scope as a name of this widespread macrophylum.
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.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, this is where your trains are running askew though on parallel tracks. To Obenga the Berbers as a people are non-African but the Berber lects he sees as an African language group. Or at least that what I make out after reading Obenga.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
^ Yes, Obenga did.
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous.
^ i agree. and you haven't. nor was it implied that you had.
however, Clyde Winters has, as has Théophille Obenga.
Winters may want to comment.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Your methods of language study are disputed, and generally disregarded as pseudo-linguistic.
You classify, without sound reason - Dravidian as a African language, and Sudanese Meroitic text as Indo European,
Few linguists take you seriously.
You don't know what you're talking about as usual. There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages. Below are just a few of the articles written on this theme See:
Aravanan,K.P. (1976). Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10, 23-27.
Aravanan, K. P. (1979). Dravidians and Africans. Madras.
Sergent , Bernard (1992). Genèse de L'Inde. Paris: Payot .
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P.(1979).Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques, Bulletin de L'IFAN, no.1, 1979, pp.100-132.
Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P.(1976). Affinites ethno-linguistiques entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain, Bull.de L’IFAN,No.1, 1976,pp.127- 157.
Weber, S.A.(1998). Out of Africa: The initial impact of millets in South Asia. Current Anthropology, 39(2), 267-274.
Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of African millets near the Indian Ocean. In J. Reade, The Indian Ocean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.
Winters, C. (1980). "The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
Winters, C. (1994). The Dravidian and African languages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), 34-52.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
Winters, C.( May 2007). Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays,27(5):497-498.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: You classify, without sound reason - Dravidian as a African language, and Sudanese Meroitic text as Indo European,
Few linguists take you seriously.
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory. The Kushana theory is that a group of "East Indian" scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites.
The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence, 1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic 2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa; 3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who lived in the Meroitic empire, failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites. It also makes it impossible for us to accept Rilly's contention that he can read Meroitic using Proto-Eastern Sudanic.
Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol. 1,cliamed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (see F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (p.45),1950). Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There is external evidence, which supports my theory. A theory explains observed phenomena and has predictive power. I have theorized that due to the claims of the Classical writers that some of the Meroites came from India (F.C Conybeare (Trans.), Philostratus: The life of Apollonius of Tyana Vol.2, (1950) pg.271). According to the Life of Apollonius, the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, Vol.1, Pg.273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed.
The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka, which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India (London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius.Confirmation of the Ganges story, supports the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
Moreover, there were other Indians in North Africa in addition to Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community (see: R. Salomon, "Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society, (1991) pp.731-736; and R. Salomon, Addenda, Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1993) pg.593). These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Meroitic writing system.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian-Meroite King who conquered the Scythians is supported by the Indian literature, provides external corroboration of the tradition that some of the Meroites were of Indian origin. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state. In relation to the history of linguistic change and bilingualism, it is a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tokharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves if further strong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis. The hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis.
The predicting power of the original theory, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified. The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia]. I constructed five testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these five variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis. Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
You can read more about my decipherment of Meroitic in the following articles: Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (Juin 1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques , No.23 , pages 18-21.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989b). "Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet: Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, pp. 149-152.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text. Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(1), pp. 29-34.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1998). Meroitic funerary Text. Part1, Inscription Journal of Ancient Egypt 1,(2), pp. 41-55.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388.
You can read more about my decipherment at the following web site:
My most recent article discussing Meroitic history and deciphering Meroitic documents titled the Meroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in the Dodekaschoinos can be found at the following site:
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.
.
"Algeria) and Tashelhiyt (central Morocco). Tamazight has been a written language, on and off, for over 2000 years, although the tradition has been frequently disrupted by various invasions.
It was first written in the Tifinagh alphabet, still used by the Tuareg; the oldest dated inscription is from about 200 BC"
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “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.
quote: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.
Of course they have, the Berber languages originate in Africa, along with the Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian. Speakers of these languages have predominently African lineages - which proves their African origin, thus languages and lineages both originate in Africa.
quote:Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots.
Not necessesary, some consider Berber as having branched from Chadic.
But how does this help you. According to you, these relationships should not exist, since Berber is supposed to be "Germanic".
The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
For you, the more outrageous the claim...the better, apparently.
quote: Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic
rotfl! You haven't explained anything.
quote: please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
Actually, the burdan is upon you to prove that such a relationship exists between Berber and Germanic.
What just happened is this:
You provid example of the use of .st for feminine nouns in Berber, which you tried to relate to Germanic, when a similar pattern is found in ancient Egyptian, and other African languages.
You would have us believe that the Siwa who have lived in Egypt for thousands of years, and speak Berber, get their language similarities to other African languages not from common African origins, but rather from the "Vandals" of Europe...and since 500 AD???
rotfl.
And you wonder why your stuff is so marginalised?
You then claim that the relationship between Egyptian and Berber in this case is superficial, even though it relates the same issue that you attempt to treat as some sort of profound evidence of recent Germanic influence.
Your position makes no sense, proves nothing, and is unsupported in current scholarship for this reason.
Therefore the burden of proof remains entirely upon you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Although this begs more questions than it answers for me, pertaining to Obenga's classification.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ok, this is where your trains are running askew though on parallel tracks. To Obenga the Berbers as a people are non-African but the Berber lects he sees as an African language group. Or at least that what I make out after reading Obenga.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
^ Yes, Obenga did.
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: No Obenga did not.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As far as I can see, no one has disputed the African'ness' of the Berber. To do so would be propostorous.
^ i agree. and you haven't. nor was it implied that you had.
however, Clyde Winters has, as has Théophille Obenga.
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
Lol. Oh man, Clyde you are deluded.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
If this is true why don't you present research disputing the findings of the authors I posted.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “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.
quote: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.
Of course they have, the Berber languages originate in Africa, along with the Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian. Speakers of these languages have predominently African lineages - which proves their African origin, thus languages and lineages both originate in Africa.
quote:Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots.
Not necessesary, some consider Berber as having branched from Chadic.
But how does this help you. According to you, these relationships should not exist, since Berber is supposed to be "Germanic".
The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
For you, the more outrageous the claim...the better, apparently.
quote: Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic
rotfl! You haven't explained anything.
quote: please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
Actually, the burdan is upon you to prove that such a relationship exists between Berber and Germanic.
What just happened is this:
You provid example of the use of .st for feminine nouns in Berber, which you tried to relate to Germanic, when a similar pattern is found in ancient Egyptian, and other African languages.
You would have us believe that the Siwa who have lived in Egypt for thousands of years, and speak Berber, get their language similarities to other African languages not from common African origins, but rather from the "Vandals" of Europe...and since 500 AD???
rotfl.
And you wonder why your stuff is so marginalised?
You then claim that the relationship between Egyptian and Berber in this case is superficial, even though it relates the same issue that you attempt to treat as some sort of profound evidence of recent Germanic influence.
Your position makes no sense, proves nothing, and is unsupported in current scholarship for this reason.
Therefore the burden of proof remains entirely upon you.
I am waiting for linguistic examples supporting your conclusions. I did not ask you what people think.
I asked you to show a relationship between Berber and any African language especially Egyptian if it is an African language.
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: 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.
Dubious. Most of the credible mainstream studies on this issue posted by Rasol et al. suggest that the Berbers are of African origin with some gene flow from Europe over various historic periods. The gene flow was affected by time period, maternal vs paternal lineages and other factors but the bottom line is that the Berbers are native Africans. Today's Berbers after centuries of gene flow, such as the Arabs, Phonecians, etc etc would certainly look different from the original, ancient stock.
Keita 1990, 1992 cites a number of Saharan tribes like the Haratin, so-called "black Berbers" that have been in place for a long time, and are indigenous. He also cites blood studies linking the ancient Egyptians more closely with the black northern Haratin (also Berbers) than with European populations. Throw in the PN2 data and you got an argument hard to substantiate- re Euro origin Berbers.
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.
If Diop means modern Berbers, it could be said that gene flow by Arabs, Vandals etc may have shaped how present day peoples look, but Berbers are a very mixed breed, and of course, there is the ORIGINAL native stock in place, such as the black Haratin. Also the Berber languages are part of the Afro-Asiatic group originating in East Africa.
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.
Dubious. Since the Berber languages are part of the Afro Asiatic then it is hard to see them as "Germanic speaking people".
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor Clyde, apparently he didn't even bother to read the initial post of this thread.
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
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
OK, but you have provided little credible proof to support this hypothesis The Kushana by most verifable histories were of Central Asian origin and you have not presented any credible showing them in Meroe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire (see footnotes)
Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites..
Sure, but then any other number of alternative scenarios "could" have happened. What is needed is credible evidence supporting your hypothesis. Anyone can draw up hypotheses that "could" explain whatever they want to claim.
The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state.
Shaky. Again, anyone can produce a theory based on some fragmented fact. But it is doubtful that the rulers of Meroe needed a language from Central Asia to "unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state." That is a stretch. If anything, the influence of Egypt and surrounding locales is much closer.
Competing versions of the classification of Meriotic, whether AfroAsiatic, or Eastern Sudanic, both still point to African origins, not to distant Central Asia. You have to produce credible research and sources if you want to credibly join that classification mix.
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian. But you also said that Tokharian was needed to unify the state. Why would they choose a distant Central Asian language to do so when they had hieroglyphics and other localized scripts close at hand? Sure they "could" have also used Tokharian, but then they "could" have also used Greek or Persian. Anything "could" have happened. You have to produce more solid evidence in support.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. There are plenty of rival explanations already cited, from DNA to historical. Indians in North Africa or Kush do not make your case. Persians, Greeks, Egyptians Libyans, Phonecians etc etc were all there in varying forms, from traders, to diplomats to mercenaries. What you have done is take a slight fragment of something then expand it to say "it could" have been so. Sure. Anything "could" have happened. But the question becomes, where is your credible evidence?
My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
All 5 variables or claims are very weak. Now perhaps you could make an argument based on the theories of C. Loring Brace whose 1993 "CLines and Clusters" study argued for links between Egyptians, Somalis and distant Indians. But as shown elsewhere on ES such far-flung matches are shaky.
You could also make an argument based on the the Nostratic hypothesis which attempts to group Dravdian into one super family with the Afro-Asiatic languages. Hence this broad umbrella might explain how the languages are linked together. But this too seems a stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NostraticPosts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Poor Clyde, apparently he didn't even bother to read the initial post of this thread.
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
In theory, Clyde could tighten his hypothesis using Brace's "Indian connection" to take care of the physical connection part, and the Nostratic thing to claim a broad umbrella under which the languages can be hooked together. but it still won't yield much change against the excerpt you post above.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you also said that Tokharian was needed to unify the state. Why would they choose a distant Central Asian language to do so when they had hieroglyphics and other localized scripts close at hand?
^ most of the immature students of Winters, don't even understand that he is implying that Sudans Meroitic script is Asian [Indo European] actually, in origin, and *not* African.
instead they allow themselves to be sucker-distracted by his claims that Dravidians are really African and not Asian.
Somehow this is eventually supposed to make Meroitic African anyway, even though it originates -according to Winters- in Asia.
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
If this is true why don't you present research disputing the findings of the authors I posted.
.
Because I don't chase strawmen.
Here, i'll show you what i mean.
You ask, if this is true?
What is "this"?
Could it be....
a) There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
b) Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years.
^ This is per geneticist Kivisild, who is one of your "sources."
Your sources don't agree with you.
What do you want me to refute then?
Your *utterly baseless* claims?
Then let's get back to specifics >
* Good luck finding African Dravidians.
* Good luck explaining why Dravidians have 40 thousand year old Asian lineages, and no African lineages, when they are supposed to have been living in the 'sahara' during Dyanastic Egypt, that is before they mysteriously and completely disppeared from Africa, leaving not a single archeology site behind to evidence what you insist upon as their origin.
Of course, you can always post bibligraphic citations from scholars who don't agree with you, and pretend it's a mass of support for your far fetched claims.
Since you have no actual evidence for African Dravidians, what choice do you have but to make fake claims?
But that is charlatanism, not scholarship. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “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.
quote: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.
Of course they have, the Berber languages originate in Africa, along with the Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian. Speakers of these languages have predominently African lineages - which proves their African origin, thus languages and lineages both originate in Africa.
quote:Berber is usually associated with Egyptian via Semitic roots.
Not necessesary, some consider Berber as having branched from Chadic.
But how does this help you. According to you, these relationships should not exist, since Berber is supposed to be "Germanic".
The absurdity of attributing languages of such far flung peoples as the Siwa of Egypt and the Toureg of Nigeria to *recent* influence from Vandals, is almost as bad as your claim that Japanese language originates in recent migrations from West Africa.
For you, the more outrageous the claim...the better, apparently.
quote: Since we can explain the relationship between Berber languages and Semitic
rotfl! You haven't explained anything.
quote: please provide lexical evidence of an Egyptian--Berber relationship.
Actually, the burdan is upon you to prove that such a relationship exists between Berber and Germanic.
What just happened is this:
You provid example of the use of .st for feminine nouns in Berber, which you tried to relate to Germanic, when a similar pattern is found in ancient Egyptian, and other African languages.
You would have us believe that the Siwa who have lived in Egypt for thousands of years, and speak Berber, get their language similarities to other African languages not from common African origins, but rather from the "Vandals" of Europe...and since 500 AD???
rotfl.
And you wonder why your stuff is so marginalised?
You then claim that the relationship between Egyptian and Berber in this case is superficial, even though it relates the same issue that you attempt to treat as some sort of profound evidence of recent Germanic influence.
Your position makes no sense, proves nothing, and is unsupported in current scholarship for this reason.
Therefore the burden of proof remains entirely upon you.
I am waiting for linguistic examples supporting your conclusions. I did not ask you what people think.
I asked you to show a relationship between Berber and any African language especially Egyptian if it is an African language.
.
The above post provides an example that directly refutes your conclusion.
Evidently you can't address it, and so resort to stalling.
Fine by me.
Unlike you, I'm not a "professional" linguist, yet I have no trouble reducing you to squirming evasions. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shaky. Again, anyone can produce a theory based on some fragmented fact. But it is doubtful that the rulers of Meroe needed a language from Central Asia to "unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state." That is a stretch. If anything, the influence of Egypt and surrounding locales is much closer.
Winters is systematic in this respect.
He looks for improbable relationships between geographically distant peoples, and then ignores relationships between geographically close peoples.
For Winters, the place/name "tai" can somehow show a specific relationship between japan and nigeria.... it doesn't matter that the same word shows up in China and Mongolia.
For Winters, use of "st" as a feminine noun form ties Berber to German.... doesn't matter that this form of feminine noun can also be found in Ancient Egyptian.
This form of argument is called 'confirmation bias'.
Winters does this over and over again, and is as oblvious to this error as he is to the difference between X and Y chromosome as pertains to some of this 'genetic' claims.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, but you have provided little credible proof to support this hypothesis The Kushana by most verifable histories were of Central Asian origin and you have not presented any credible showing them in Meroe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan_Empire (see footnotes)
The Creditable evidence is that in the Classical literature it is mentioned that the Indians who came to Meroe left because of the murder of their king. I presented evidence that this story matches the history of the Kushana migration into India and Central Asia(H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India (London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73).
quote: Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites..
Sure, but then any other number of alternative scenarios "could" have happened. What is needed is credible evidence supporting your hypothesis. Anyone can draw up hypotheses that "could" explain whatever they want to claim.
What are these alternative claims? What historical evidence supports these claims? Explain
quote:
The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade language did not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state.
Shaky. Again, anyone can produce a theory based on some fragmented fact. But it is doubtful that the rulers of Meroe needed a language from Central Asia to "unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state." That is a stretch. If anything, the influence of Egypt and surrounding locales is much closer.
This is not shaky. The Classical writers said the Indians came to Meroe. Originally as you know, the Meroites did write in Egyptian. But after Roman rule thousands of Egyptians emigrated to Meroe. This made Egyptian speakers a large minority group in Meroe. As a result the Meroites introduced their own writing system which agrees with the writing system used by the Meroites.
The countries of Bactria, Afghanistan, Georgia, ancient Elam and Beluchistan were called Kush . The Armenian historians always named the eastern Parthians Kushan. The people living there called themselves Kushana , Kuisa or Kusa . Moses Chorene (/Xorenac'i) in Patmut'iwn Hayoc' (Venice,1881) claimed that the four divisions of Persia: Media, Elymais, Aria, and etc. as Kush. C. B. Rawlinson in "Notes on the Early History of Babylonia", Journal Royal Asiatic Society, 15, pp. 221-222 discussed the unity of Ethiopians in Asia and Africa.
This would explain the statement by Philostratus in Life of Appollonius and Jerom, that the Gymnosophists of Kush, who settled near the source of the Nile, descended from the Brahmins of India, having been forced to migrate after the murder of their king. Eustathius, also said that the Kushites (Meroites) came from India. We can also be sure that the Kushan were known in northeast Africa because a horde of Kushan coins were found in the floor of a cave at the present monastery-shrine at Debra Demo in modern Ethiopia in 1940.
It should be made evident that the people of Kush had long asserted their identity in using Egyptian scripts. T. Eide, T.Hagg, R.H. Pierce and L. Torok, in Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (1996), make it clear that there appears to be a break in the use of Egyptian grammatical structure in Kush, with the inscriptions of Nastasen (p.494).
First of all, the Meroitic script was totally derived from Kharosthi writing, I have said that around 17 Meroitic signs agree with Kharosthi both in shape and phonetic value. The fact that Demotic was purely phonetic, according to A. Loprieno in Ancient Egyptian :" the limited number of shapes it used to represent the language required a high degree of professional training on the part of the Late Period scribes…marks the beginning of a divorce between monumental and cursive writing". I believe that the linguistic changes caused by the introduction of Demotic, prepared Meroitic scribes for the use of a mixed Demotic-Kharosthi system of writing during the Meroitic period. The Meroites probably accepted this system, because it helped avoid the cultural nationalism and ethnic conflicts in Meroe, use of one of the languages already spoken by the Meroitie nationalities might have caused in the multiethnic Meroitic Empire. An analogous case is the present use of English in states like Nigeria, as the national language, instead of Hausa or Yoruba, because of the ethnic competition between these groups.
Use of Tocharian as a neutral language to write Meroitic would explain why the Meroitic script is markedly different from the Egyptian writing. This would explain Priese statement in your earlier post that: The Meroitic script served for the composition of texts in a non-Egyptian language,Meroitic.
This would not exclude that the Meroitic script could have been based on the Napatan script as a developmental stage,up till the point at which they began to use it for non-Egyptian texts. But however this is not the case. The two scripts are clearly so different from each other that one must describe the Meroitic script as a consciously created new thing, even if fully based on the system of its predecessor. "
The fact that Priese recognized the "the two scripts are clearly so different for each other that one must describe the Meroitic script as a consciously created new thing," support the tradition recorded by the classical writers that "Indians" introduced the Meroitic system into Kush.
quote: Competing versions of the classification of Meriotic, whether AfroAsiatic, or Eastern Sudanic, both still point to African origins, not to distant Central Asia. You have to produce credible research and sources if you want to credibly join that classification mix.
Most researchers agree that the Meroitic language was not related to the Afro-Asiatic group. . Scholars working on Meroitic do not believe Meroitic was an Afro-Asiatic language. Griffith and B.G. Haycock (1973), tried to read Meroitic using Nubian. Priese tried to read Eastern Sudanic in Meroitic; and Fr. Hintze attempted to compare Meroitic with the Ural Altaic languages. All of these attempts to read the Meroitic tablets failed.
quote:
The fact that the Nubians who were part of the "Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that they could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough they wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon Nubian.
Nubians were never part of the Meroitic empire. The Nubians and Kushites were always warring with each other.
quote: The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed [i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence. There are plenty of rival explanations already cited, from DNA to historical. Indians in North Africa or Kush do not make your case. Persians, Greeks, Egyptians Libyans, Phonecians etc etc were all there in varying forms, from traders, to diplomats to mercenaries. What you have done is take a slight fragment of something then expand it to say "it could" have been so. Sure. Anything "could" have happened. But the question becomes, where is your credible evidence?
If you believe this to be true please discuss these evidences. Support them with historical evidence like the evidence I presented.
quote: My confirmation of the above five variables: the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe; cognate lexical items; cognate verbs and cognate grammatical features indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
All 5 variables or claims are very weak. Now perhaps you could make an argument based on the theories of C. Loring Brace whose 1993 "CLines and Clusters" study argued for links between Egyptians, Somalis and distant Indians. But as shown elsewhere on ES such far-flung matches are shaky.
You could also make an argument based on the the Nostratic hypothesis which attempts to group Dravdian into one super family with the Afro-Asiatic languages. Hence this broad umbrella might explain how the languages are linked together. But this too seems a stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic
You claim these variables are easy falsify but you have presented no evidence doing this. Nostratic is dated to 10,000 years ago. No Meroitic or even Egyptian civilization existed at this time.
[Chart] In recent years researchers were able to develop a grammar of Meroitic, without being able to read Meroitic. The research of Hintze (1979) and Hoffman (1981) made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989). The following words correspond to Tokharian words: Meroitic Tokharian 0 kadke / ktke # queen 0 katak # master of the house There are several recognized Meroitic words (Hintze 1979). 0 ato # water 0 ap # 0 s # 'race' 0 sah # 'man' 0 wide # youth 0 wir # 0 qor # monarch 0 oroce # 'the grand king' 0 parite # agent 0 parwe # 'first' 0 apote # 'envoy' 0 ap # 'father' It is obvious that apote and parite do not relate to Tokharian because these are Egyptian loan words adopted by the Meroites. But around 57% of these terms show agreement. This made it highly probable that Meroitic and Tokharian were cognate languages. The grammar of Meroitic determined by Hintze (1979) allowed us to also make comparisons with Tocharian to test the Kushana hypothesis for reading Meroitic. This comparison of grammatical structures showed cognition between this language and Meroitic. Hintze was sure that there were a number of Meroitic affixes including: p
ye -te -to -o B.G. Trigger in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned several other possible Meroitic affixes including: -n -te -b In addition , A. M. Abdalla in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned three possible verbal suffixes , including: -ñ -t -y These alleged Meroitic grammatical elements encouraged me to seek out a language that contained these typological features as the possible cognate language for Meroitic. The Kushana language includes all of these affixes. [/Chart]Dravidian languages are genetically related to Niger-Congo languages—not Afro-Asiatic.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Poor Clyde, apparently he didn't even bother to read the initial post of this thread.
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
In theory, Clyde could tighten his hypothesis using Brace's "Indian connection" to take care of the physical connection part, and the Nostratic thing to claim a broad umbrella under which the languages can be hooked together. but it still won't yield much change against the excerpt you post above.
This is unnecessary the archaeological evidence showing that the Dravidians only arrived in India around 5000 years ago and the genetic linguistic relationship between the Niger-Congo and Dravidian languages is enough to support the relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
Winters CA 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
Winters CA 2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics.
posted
What you are saying is that these are the ideas of your European masters. Dravidians do not believe these things.
Please post a paper written by a Dravidian speaker supporting these claims if you are correct. .
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
There are many linguist who support the existence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
^ literally this is an oxymoron -ie 'genetic' relationship between languages.
Let us ignore your slippery language and cut to the chase.
The general concensus is:
Dravidian is an Indian and not and African language.
Dravidians do not originate in Africa.
There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years - far predating the divergence of Dravidian language and culture.
Nothing you have ever presented has had any impact on this concensus, nor should it, as you combine faulty linguistic methodology, obsolete anthropology references, and genetic illiteracy, which is ironic given your foundess for claiming 'genetic' relationships between linguistically distant languages.
If this is true why don't you present research disputing the findings of the authors I posted.
.
Because I don't chase strawmen.
Here, i'll show you what i mean.
You ask, if this is true?
What is "this"?
Could it be....
a) There have never been Dravidians in Africa.
b) Dravidian ancestors have lived in Asia for 10's of thousands of years.
^ This is per geneticist Kivisild, who is one of your "sources."
Your sources don't agree with you.
What do you want me to refute then?
Your *utterly baseless* claims?
Then let's get back to specifics >
* Good luck finding African Dravidians.
* Good luck explaining why Dravidians have 40 thousand year old Asian lineages, and no African lineages, when they are supposed to have been living in the 'sahara' during Dyanastic Egypt, that is before they mysteriously and completely disppeared from Africa, leaving not a single archeology site behind to evidence what you insist upon as their origin.
Of course, you can always post bibligraphic citations from scholars who don't agree with you, and pretend it's a mass of support for your far fetched claims.
Since you have no actual evidence for African Dravidians, what choice do you have but to make fake claims?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] Unlike you, I'm not a "professional" linguist, yet I have no trouble reducing you to squirming evasions.
I am that's why you should stay in your place.
PUBLICATIONS Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2, (1977), pages 941-967.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Islam in Early North and South America", Al-Ittihad, (November 1977a) .
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Trade between East Africa and China", Afrikan Mwalimu, (January 1979) pages 25-31.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 (1979a), pages 61-97.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad,"The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service,1980a.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China",PISAS 1979, Hong Kong :Asian Research Service,1980b.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1 (1981a),page 103.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service, 1981b) pages 789- 807. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Further Thoughts on Japanese Dravidian Connection",Dravidian Language Association News 5, no9 (1981c) pages 1-4.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Mexico's Black Heritage", The Black Collegian,(December 1981/January 1982) pages 76-84.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Harappan script Deciphered:Proto- Dravidian Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS, 1981,(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service, 1982b) pages 925- 936.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books ,1983a) pages 208-214.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "Les fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete", Afrique Histoire, no8 (1983b), pages 13-18.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1,no2 (1983c). Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Possible Relationship between the Manding and Japanese", Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9, (1983d) pages 151-158.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters, "Magyar and Proto-Saharan Relationship",Fighter (Hungarian language Newspaper) Cleveland ,Ohio (January 1984).
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing is Proto- Dravidian",Journal of Tamil Studies , no 25 (June 1984a), pp.50-64.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques, No23 (Juin 1984b) , pages 18-21.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil" ,International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no2 (June 1984c) pages 347-353.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic Seals", Tamil Civilization 2, no1 (March 1984d), pages 1-8.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Harappan Writing of the Copper Tablets", Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3 (1984), pages 1-5.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians ,Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no1 (March 1985a) ,pages 1-9.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no1 ( 1985b), pages 13-19.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils", Journal of Tamil Studies , no27 (June 1985c), pages 65-92.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The genetic Unity between the Dravidian ,Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", P Sixth ISAS ,1984, (Hong Kong:Asian Research Service,1985d) pages 1413-1425.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 (1986a), pages 77-96.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Blacks in Ancient America", Colorlines 3, no.2 (1986b), pages 26-27.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986c)pages 225- 241.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters ,"The Dravidian Origin of the Mountain and Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9, no2 (1986d), pages 144-148.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Dravidian and Magyar/Hungarian", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 15, no2 ,(1986e).
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Rise of Islam in the Western Sahara" ,Topaz 2, no1 (1986f), pages 5-15.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum in Tokharian",Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos1-2,(1988)pages 131-141.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18,(1989) nol.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad,"Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet:Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, (1989b) pages 149-152.
Winters,Clyde Ahmad, "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 (1989) , pages 98-127.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2 (1990), pages 120-144.
-----------.1991. "Linguistic Evidence for Dravidian influence on Trade and Animal Domestication in Central and East Asia",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20 (2): 91-102.
_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.
_______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats.PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.
_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
_________.(1994b). The Dravidian and African laguages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (1), 34-52.
_________.(1994c). Ancient Dravidian: And introductory grammar of Harappan with Vocabularies , Journal Tamil Studies, No.41, 1-21.
_________.(1995a). Ancient Dravidian:The Harappan signs, Journal Tamil Studies, No.42, 1-23.
__________.(1995b). Ancient Dravidian: Harappan Grammar/Dictionary, Journal Tamil Studies, No.43-44, 59-130.
_________.(1996). Linguistic Continuity and African and Dravidian languages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), 34-52.
________________.1996a. Foundations of the Afrocentric Ancient History Curriculum, The Negro Educational Review, XLVII (3-4), 214-217.
_________.(1998a). Meroitic Funerary text: Temple architecture and mortuary practices, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt,1 (1), 29-33.
_________.(1998a). Meroitic Funerary text: Stelae and funerary tables, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt,1 (2), 41-55.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1998c). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nubica V.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1998d). The meroitic chamber inscription. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nibica V.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (n.d.). Meroitic inscriptions from Karanog. forthcoming Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98
. _______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats. PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.
_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
Why don't you list some of your work. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So says the mindless, idiotic, boy-raped one...
As for Clyde:
Here we go with saying Dravidian (a non-African language) is African while Berber (an African language) is not! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I am that's why you should stay in your place.
^ If you think having no credibility in your chosen profession is something to brag about, then.... mo-powa, Dr. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: rabble rabble rabble rabble
You're cordially invited to substantiate your purported "refutation" of Professor James' book in here Mary. And something about classical "Greek" philosophy being "home grown" also needs clarification.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi:
quote:Semites emigrated from the African side of the Red sea anyway and exported an African language to Asia where they met Asians such as the Persians, Assyrians and others. This is the only logical way to account for the presence of an African branch in a place where it is surrounded by unrelated languages. And those who know the shortness of the crossing between Africa and Asia especially at Bab-el-mandab would probably agree with me. Moreover, the most conservative Semitic dialect or dialects (Jibali) with the so-called true DAD or hard DAD are situated in southern Arabia opposite historical Ethiopia (today's Ethiopia, Eriteria, Djibouti, and Somalia).
It would make sense to change the name of the group to something like Ethiopic or Ethio-Chadic.
I am not high either on the Ethio-Chadic, neither on Abdullahi’s other proposal “Ethiopic”. My opinion may be too neutral, but I have a hard time considering a phylum’s name favoring branches over others. In my opinion, the only viable approaches in those cases are either to name the phylum by its delimitating “geographical” frontiers (i.e. Indo-European), or by reference to a common feature of all the languages or their speakers. I think the approach of late American linguist C.T. Hodge about naming it lisramic, partly based on the common word for “tongue” in all those languages *l-s (I don't get why he put the "ram-ic" on it which is only derived from Kemetic rmT "man" though). However, since the current point seems to be to emphasizing of the African nature of the group, I guess Saharo-Rift or Rift-Sahara would be a perfect match (I don’t think one would need to specify which part of the Rift is concerned; Nilo-Saharan's Nile and Sahara components, as well as Indo-European's India & Europe are not specific to those languages).
If you agree with the latter proposals, how would you call the languages? Rift-Saharan? Saharo-Riftic?
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
The Explorer & alTakruri:
quote:Originally posted by Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi:
quote:Semites emigrated from the African side of the Red sea anyway and exported an African language to Asia where they met Asians such as the Persians, Assyrians and others. This is the only logical way to account for the presence of an African branch in a place where it is surrounded by unrelated languages. And those who know the shortness of the crossing between Africa and Asia especially at Bab-el-mandab would probably agree with me. Moreover, the most conservative Semitic dialect or dialects (Jibali) with the so-called true DAD or hard DAD are situated in southern Arabia opposite historical Ethiopia (today's Ethiopia, Eriteria, Djibouti, and Somalia).
It would make sense to change the name of the group to something like Ethiopic or Ethio-Chadic.
I am not high either on the Ethio-Chadic, neither on Abdullahi’s other proposal “Ethiopic”.
Same here, and for reasons I had already stated, but I do agree with his premise about the African origins of the Semitic branch.
quote: In my opinion, the only viable approaches in those cases are either to name the phylum by its delimitating “geographical” frontiers (i.e. Indo-European), or by reference to a common feature of all the languages or their speakers. I think the approach of late American linguist C.T. Hodge about naming it lisramic, partly based on the common word for “tongue” in all those languages *l-s (I don't get why he put the "ram-ic" on it which is only derived from Kemetic rmT "man" though).
Using a presumably Pan-Afrisan terminology "*l-s" as a premise for a descriptive is an interesting one. And of course, there's that questionable "ram-ic" aspect of it that you mentioned. Other than that, it gives no minimal indication of geographic structuring of or the main geographical nodes for the language phylum's expansion.
quote: However, since the current point seems to be to emphasizing of the African nature of the group, I guess Saharo-Rift or Rift-Sahara would be a perfect match (I don’t think one would need to specify which part of the Rift is concerned; Nilo-Saharan's Nile and Sahara components, as well as Indo-European's India & Europe are not specific to those languages).
If you agree with the latter proposals, how would you call the languages? Rift-Saharan? Saharo-Riftic?
'Saharo-Rift/Saharo-Riftic' sounds more pleasing -- that is, its aesthetic value. A more pleasing version of Rift-Saharan might go something like "Rifto-Saharan". Such descriptives give more indication, if partially, of the main geographic structuring the of Afrisan super-phylum. Tacitly implied in the descriptive, is "North[ern]-Riftic" [language] speakers as the equivalent to "Semitic" - as a name for a sub-phylum. That's just my opinion, but I welcome inflow of other ideas.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I write about the African Semitic languages I call them Puntite languages since the people who speak these languages live in the area where the Puntite civilization formerly existed.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
What primary text of the "Puntites" themselves, not other people's description of these folks, have you uncovered for the first time?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
^Good question. Now I'm more solidly on the fence when it comes to changing the name of semetic, but it's not the best name and I could see changing it with the entire Afrasan phylum.
While all language groups get mistaken for "types" of people or even races (mainly by laymen), I don't like Semitic because IMO it's mis-leading.
It's an anglo bastardisation of the Hebrew derived word Shem (I think) but probably derives from Semi- meaning half (as in Mid-Eastern "half-breeds"). Semitic is still African, yet both Shem (Asia) and Sem (Near East half breed) imply non-Africanity, the latter even suggesting typological/racial thinking so... Cush at least corresponds to African characters. I'm just against anything relating african realities to mythical mumbo-jumbo of the Western/European variety.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Not that I can think of, unless you can detail the reasons for that need for us.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Now I'm more solidly on the fence when it comes to changing the name of semetic
Why would you "be on the fence"; it is clear cut: you either accept the word as it is, despite its defunct foundation as a linguist construct, or you are all for a more objective name for the phylum, keeping in touch with the times and development of linguistics.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say no, because the word Cush is derived from the a word, QEVS, which certain ancient Sudani people used to describe one of their kingdoms.
Then again, I would say yes because linguist identified Cushitic speakers for the most part are not Sudani but located in the Horn.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I am not sure I am understanding your point...Could you please expand on this?
Thanks in advance
quote:Originally posted by Alive: While all language groups get mistaken for "types" of people or even races (mainly by laymen), I don't like Semitic because IMO it's mis-leading.
It's an anglo bastardisation of the Hebrew derived word Shem (I think) but probably derives from Semi- meaning half (as in Mid-Eastern "half-breeds").
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I would say no, because the word Cush is derived from the a word, QEVS, which certain ancient Sudani people used to describe one of their kingdoms.
Then again, I would say yes because linguist identified Cushitic speakers for the most part are not Sudani but located in the Horn.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: One thing that crossed my mind. If there is a need or an idea to change the name of the language Family "Semitic" is there also a parallel need to change the name of the group "Cushitic" ?
Do we know if the word Shem or Semite was used before its bible usage?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bi-literal root SH-M simply means "name/ "renown/fame" in Hebrew, and so it exists in Phoenician as well as Punic and Neo-Punic. It also exists in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Chaldaic scripts.
Semite is not a Hebrew word nor of biblical usage.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Hmm... I am not sure I am understanding your point...Could you please expand on this?
Thanks in advance
quote:Originally posted by Alive: While all language groups get mistaken for "types" of people or even races (mainly by laymen), I don't like Semitic because IMO it's mis-leading.
It's an anglo bastardisation of the Hebrew derived word Shem (I think) but probably derives from Semi- meaning half (as in Mid-Eastern "half-breeds").
People are often caught saying things like "they weren't black they were Indo-Europeans or Berbers".
Both are really language groups, both spoken by people of wide ranging complexions.
Semitic implies son of "Shem" (non-Africa) or worse, "half-breed".
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The appellative "Shem" is used in the bible.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The bi-literal root SH-M simply means "name/ "renown/fame" in Hebrew, and so it exists in Phoenician as well as Punic and Neo-Punic. It also exists in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Chaldaic scripts.
Semite is not a Hebrew word nor of biblical usage.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic