posted
Are not very closely related languages in the same family? One need not take the position that in order for AE to be considered as an African language it must be closely related to Wolof, it is very closely related to Cushitic and Chadic languages spoken by black Africans, thus Wally should stop spreading this falsehood.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally has made the most important discovery in Egyptology in the past 100 years. He not only supported the research of Diop he also found that Egyptian was a lingua franca, a relationship also implied in Asar's work. These two AA Egyptologist have provided us a framework that allows us to take a fresh look at Egypt.
Granted Egyptian is related to the Chushitic and Chadic groups, but most of the speakers of these languages were not part of the Egyptian Empire/Confederation as testified too by the division of Egypt into Nomes. Wally's finding that some of the most southern Nomes had names that relate to contemporary West Africans explains why the relationship between Egyptian and Akan/Twi, Fula, Bantu, Wolof and Mande is so close in vocabulary and grammar.
Wally keep up the Good work. I myself, will try to do everything in my power to promote this theory. Hopefully I will make a video on this topic: Egyptian is a Lingua Franca, when I have the time for Youtube.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Wally has made the most important discovery in Egyptology in the past 100 years. He not only supported the research of Diop he also found that Egyptian was a lingua franca, a relationship also implied in Asar's work. These two AA Egyptologist have provided us a framework that allows us to take a fresh look at Egypt.
Wally simply repeated what Diop already stated, far from being a discovery. No one doubts that African languages all have a relationship to one another but to state that Ancient egyptian and Wolof are very closely related to one another goes against all linguistic evidence. AE is much more related to Cushitic and Chadic and even some Nilo-Saharan languages from which it has some loan words as opposed to Wolof which is more closely related to Fulfide and Serer.
quote:Granted Egyptian is related to the Chushitic and Chadic groups, but most of the speakers of these languages were not part of the Egyptian Empire/Confederation as testified too by the division of Egypt into Nomes.
There is no evidence Wolof speakers were part of the Egyptian empire. Cushitic speakers and AEs had extensive contact.
quote: Wally's finding that some of the most southern Nomes had names that relate to contemporary West Africans explains why the relationship between Egyptian and Akan/Twi, Fula, Bantu, Wolof and Mande is so close in vocabulary and grammar.
posted
Thank you Dr. Winters for your response of support.
The topic posted by .Charlie Bass. seems to me no more than chagrin or perhaps a little too much of the spiced eggnog
a) he provides no evidence to counter the factual evidence which I have provided on the relationship of Wolof and Egyptian...He is only able to say 'falsehood', 'lies'...
b) he seems to assume that I am unaware of the close relationship of Oromo, and especially Bedawi (Beja) to Ancient Egyptian...(otherwise why wouldn't I use these languages to prove the 'Africanist' of the Mdu Ntr): He is simply projecting his own assumptions which have nothing at all to do with what I am presenting...
c) in his worldview, this evidence of relationship is valid:
quote:The good has become evil
Spanish: el bien se ha convertido en el mal Portuguese: o bem tornou-se mal
...but this evidence is invalid:
quote:The good has become evil
Ancient Egyptian: bw nafret zu em bw bon Wolof: bw rafet mel ni bw bon
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Thank you Dr. Winters for your response of support.
The topic posted by .Charlie Bass. seems to me no more than chagrin or perhaps a little too much of the spiced eggnog
a) he provides no evidence to counter the factual evidence which I have provided on the relationship of Wolof and Egyptian...He is only able to say 'falsehood', 'lies'...
b) he seems to assume that I am unaware of the close relationship of Oromo, and especially Bedawi (Beja) to Ancient Egyptian...(otherwise why wouldn't I use these languages to prove the 'Africanist' of the Mdu Ntr): He is simply projecting his own assumptions which have nothing at all to do with what I am presenting...
c) in his worldview, this evidence of relationship is valid:
quote:The good has become evil
Spanish: el bien se ha convertido en el mal Portuguese: o bem tornou-se mal
...but this evidence is invalid:
quote:The good has become evil
Ancient Egyptian: bw nafret zu em bw bon Wolof: bw rafet mel ni bw bon
Reposted and read it thoroughly, the author correctly shows how Wolof is far more genetically related to Fula than to Ancient Egyptian for which no close genetic relationship exists. One key quote:
I should stress that I did not select especially questionable looking comparisons for the list of examples above—similar items can be found on every page of Diop’s comparative word list. To be sure, there are some items which look relatively convincing, e.g. Egyptian h rwy ‘testicles’, Wolof xuur (hwr) ‘testicle’; possibly h rd ‘child’, Wolof xale ‘child’; and a few others, but this is no surprise. One can find a few chance resemblances in words between any two randomly chosen languages. With selected words and a fertile imagination, one can furnish apparent “proof” that English and Wolof are related!Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:.Charlie Bass. wrote: You ignored the link posted above did you not?
No, unlike you who obviously did not read 'thoroughly' my post (of far more brevity), I read this bullpuckey UCLA paper, meant expressly to counter the work of C.A. Diop...if I had a dime for each doctrinaire thesis such as the one you have presented as evidence...
But let us not tarry; You quoted from this diatribe posing as science:
quote:One can find a few chance resemblances in words between any two randomly chosen languages. With selected words and a fertile imagination, one can furnish apparent “proof” that English and Wolof are related!
a) "The good has become evil" is an English expression
"Bw nafret zu em bw bon" is the same expression in Mdu Ntr
"Bw rafet mel ni bw bon" is the same expression in Wolof
...is this the product of a fertile imagination or the simple recording of fact?
b) are the following just 'some items' - (... the idiot author of this paper is referring to coincidence); so are the following merely "coincidental"? (...aside from the "coincidental" citing of 'testicles' we have...)
Pharaonic Egyptian - Wolof; (Wolof meaning)
aam - aam : seize (take this) aar - aar : paradise (divine protection) Aku - Aku : foreigners (Creole descendants of European traders and African wives) anu - K.enou : pillar atef - ate : a crown of Osiris, judge of the soul (to judge) ba - bei : the ram-god (goat) bai - bai : a priestly title (father) ben ben - ben ben : overflow, flood bon - bon : evil bu - bu : place bu bon - bu bon : evil place bu nafret - bu rafet : good place da - da : child deg - deega : to see, to look at carefully (to understand) deresht - deret : blood diou - diou rom : five djit - djit : magistrate (guide, leader) Djoob - Djob : a surname dtti - datti : the savage desert (the savage brush) Etbo - temb : the 'floater' (to float) fei - fab : to carry fero - fari : king iaay - yaay : old woman (mother) ire - yer : to make itef - itef : father kat - kata : vagina (to have sexual intercourse) kau - kaou : elevated, above (heaven) kau - kau : high, above, heaven kaw - kaw : height kef - kef : to seize, grasp kem -khem : black (burnt, burnt black) kemat - kematef : end of a period, completion, limit khekh - khekh : to fight, to wage war, war kher - ker : country (house) kwk - kwk : darkness lebou - Lebou : those at the stream, Lebou/fishermen Senegal maat - mat : justice maga - mag : veteran, old person mer - maar : love (passionate love) mun - won : buttocks nag - nag : bull (cattle) nak - nak : ox, bull (cow) NDam - NDam : throne neb - ndab : float nen - nen : place where nothing is done (nothingness) nit - nit : citizen Ntr - Twr : protecting god, totem nwt - nit : fire of heaven (evening light) o.k. - wah keh : correct, right onef - onef : he (past tense) ones - ones : she (past tense) onsen - onsen : they (past tense) pe - pey : capital, heaven (King's capital) per - per : house (the wall surrounding the house) pur - bur : king ram - yaram : body, shoulder (body) rem - erem : to weap, tears (compassion) ro - ro : mouth (to swallow) sa - sa : wise, educated, to teach seh - seh : noble (dignitary) seked - seggay : a slope sen - sen : brother sent - san : sister set - set : woman (wife) shopi - sopi : to transform sity - seety : to prove sok - sookha : to pound grain (sokh - to strike, beat) ta - ta : earth, land (inundated earth) ta tenen - ten : first lands (clay of first humans) tefnit - tefnit : to spit tem - tem : to completely stop doing something tn.r - dener : to remember (to imagine) top - bop : top of head twr - twr : libation uuh - uuf : carry wer - wer : great, trustworthy
...a thousand more examples would not lift the veil from your eyes...
The Schuh paper provides 14 alleged terms he claims came from Diop out of hundred. The should have alerted you to the fact that Schuh was out to decieve readers.
On page 25 Diop compares Egyptian and Wolof:
Egyptian............Wolof i.................. ni mi............. ma ni................. na k..................nga ef................. ef es................. es n..................nanw tn................. ngen sen................ naiw (sen)
This illustrates that Shuh is an untrust worthy writer. He wrote the paper you cite with a political intention in mind. A cursory review of the Schuh article before publication would have shown the paper to be unreliable.
Do you, or do you know anyone that speaks a related language of Sengambia or Fulbe?
Have you, the researcher, or anyone you know ever been to both Senegambia and the Nile Valley (namely southern Egypt and Sudan) to document any other unusual and noteworthy similarities besides any found in language?
If not, have you done any primary research regarding this subject?
If the answer to any or all of the above is no, then can we agree that you are simply parroting the work this/these UCLA researcher(s), who, according to the extensive reference list, does NOT include any primary research, and is only also parroting second hand information, and can only be regarded as a 2nd hand theory? If he has done primary research, can YOU tell us the extent of it since YOU are passing it off as ultimate authoity on the subject?
A common message board/blog tactic is to pass off 2nd hand information that amounts to theory as ultimate authority and fact.
Would it not have been better to simply present the information, then encourage others into a dialogue as to it's salience or verity?
Can we agree?
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie, Good question, but I think that the course of this thread has already made the answer to the namesake and opener of this thread fairly obvious.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recommend the book Word and Meaning in Yoruba Religion: Linguistic Connections between Yoruba, Ancient Egyptian and Semetic by Dr. Modupe Oduyoye. I think this (and other works of his) demonstrates conclusively that Yoruba is related to the Semetic branch of the so-called Afro-Asiatic. If this be the case, then one has to reexamine the whole category schema. Obenga has demonstrated in a paper that the Dagara language in many respects is closer to Egyptian than Coptic. The paper cited by Schuh has already been debunked on many occasion. He didn't even check with related languages to see if there was a case of metathesis. For instance (Modupe:
FORGIVENESS
Arabic gafara "forgive" [g-f-r] Yoruba foriji "forgive" [f-r-j] (metathesis of the Arabic above, with the g/j alternation common within Semetic) Arabic kafara "to cover, to hide" [k-f-r] Hebrew kapar "to atone" [k-p-r] Aramaic kepar "to wash away, to rub off" [k-p-r] Egyptian krp "to scrape out" (an inscription metathesis of the Yoruba and Arabic above) Yoruba pare "to rub off" [k-p-r] (you can also say kpare)
s can be seen, all of these words are built off the same consonental root which suggest a rubbing off, to wash, to wipe off stain, blemish or sin, which expands to the concept of forgiveness. As a result, we can conclude that this root cluster system is an inherent innovation within the language family.
To demonstrate that this is not an accident,
Lexical correspondences by plain labial stop /b/ initial
Egyptian Yoruba
1 Ba “to hoe crops” (b-) Ba “to germinate” : agrarian word (b-)
3 Bi “good deed” (b-) Bi “to give birth,” what is a real good deed (semantic evolution) (b-)
4 Bw/bu “to detest, to abominate” (b-) Bu “to abuse” (same semantic category)
5 bs/bes “to initiate into” (b-s) Busi “to bless” (initiation is considered a blessing an honor)
6 bst/besa “to protect” (b-s) Busa “to honor, respect”: to honor and respect implies care and protection in African civilizations. Mbochi (Bantu) : M-Bosa, he who is honored and respected for his protection
3 ka,kai, "think about" ka "to read" to count Mbochi-Bantu: ka, a particle to reinforce ideas, thoughts
These sound correspondences are regular between Egyptian and Yoruba. Wolof and Yoruba are both Niger-Congo languages.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Eventhough Gaul is trolling Wally is being a Diop parrot at best, its clear Wally didn't read the paper posted because its intention was not to refute Diop out of some conspiracy, but moving on, using Wally's logic:
One can find a few chance resemblances in words between any two randomly chosen languages. With selected words and a fertile imagination, one can furnish apparent “proof” that English and Wolof are related!
Wolof English bëy ‘goat’ buck dee ‘to die’ die fan ‘when?’ when gémmiñ ‘mouth’ gums góór ‘man’ guard lekk ‘to eat’ lick man ‘I, me’ me nag ‘cow’ nag (in the sense of ‘decrepit horse’)
ñam ‘food’ yum-yum ndox ‘water’ dock nit ‘person’ native nopp ‘ear’ lobe safara ‘fire’ fire [sa- a prefix in Wolof] xale ‘child’ child [ch < *k—cf. German Kind] yow ‘you [sing.]’ you
Thats right, using Wally's methods, Wolof and English are closely related.
Again, claims that the author wrote the paper to counter Diop is an outright lie for the author states:
I must make very clear the claim that I have been making in comparing Egyptian and Chadic (and that I also could have made for Egyptian and the Cushitic and Semitic languages): Egyptian and the Chadic languages are related in that they have all descended from an ancient ancestral language for which we have no historical record—the Chadic languages did not descend from Egyptian. Diop also did not claim that Wolof and the other languages he mentions are direct descendants of Egyptian. It is actually quite likely that these languages are related to Egyptian, but if they are, it is a relationship far more remote than that between Egyptian and Chadic. I return to this point below.
5. Conclusion: All African Languages Probably are Related
In this paper, I have gone to some lengths to show the untenability of a particular “language origin” theory, but more important is a general lesson about the use of linguistic data in history: the only data relevant for lingustic classification is linguistic data, and one must let the data lead where it will, without preconceptions about what the results should be. There is nothing original in this statement—these are points made repeatedly in Greenberg’s work on classification.
I have no question that Cheikh Anta Diop was sincere in his attempt to show a relationship between the Egyptian language and what he calls les langues négroafricaines. In fact, I have no question that Egyptian and these languages are related!Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posting directly after Asar's demonstration of the relationship between Yoruba and Egyptian...and after Dr. Winters explanation of the bogus nature of the UCLA paper...Charlie Bass. ignores this and returns to his altar of sheer nonsense...
His parroting of a lame attempt at diversion viv-a-vis 'English/Wolof' is just plain bull...
IE, Compare my additional list --b.led in Arabic is land in English: b.led 'land' land --Wonofre (from Mdu Ntr) becomes O'nofrio in Italian --Re (sun in Mdu Ntr) becomes ray in English --Sir (nobleman in Mdu Ntr) becomes Sir in English...
Diop made similar comparisons in his "The African Origin..." but was never so confused as to suggest a genetic relationship between Italian, English, and Egyptian!
...Alas, Mr. Bass' problem, I think, is more severe than just sipping too much spiced eggnog...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: No, unlike you who obviously did not read 'thoroughly' my post (of far more brevity), I read this bullpuckey UCLA paper, meant expressly to counter the work of C.A. Diop...if I had a dime for each doctrinaire thesis such as the one you have presented as evidence
Alas, you have discovered Charlieboy's methodology. These types of negros wait for whites or white approved blacks (like Keita) to "confirm" reality for them. Notice he does the same with the Black American and AE genetic and cultural links. No contrary data is presented, just disbelief since whites or certain blacks havent "confirmed" it for him as yet. Even when he doesn't understand what the whites are actually saying (like Bowcock and Sforza's hybrid secondary race of Europeans) he will cut and paste their "findings" like gospel to liberate the negro. LOL
quote:you are simply parroting the work this/these UCLA researcher(s), who, according to the extensive reference list, does NOT include any primary research, and is only also parroting second hand information, and can only be regarded as a 2nd hand theory? If he has done primary research, can YOU tell us the extent of it since YOU are passing it off as ultimate authoity on the subject?
LOL! Can you blame Charlie boy for not replying to this! He accuses others of "parroting" certain scholars yet he is doing the very same thing! Obviously he's just upset noone is parroting his third hand source. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: LOL! Can you blame Charlie boy for not replying to this! He accuses others of "parroting" certain scholars yet he is doing the very same thing! Obviously he's just upset noone is parroting his third hand source. LOL [/qb]
Much noted. When one puts so much stock into terms such as "Nilo-Saharan", "Chadic", and "Cushitic", it becomes apparent they will not understand why it is important to have first hand knowledge, or at least consider those who actually speak the language and what they have to say about it, before parroting one who does not.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic