posted
For those of you who have never heard of this guy: Theophile Obenga
He's undergone an effort to classify African languages similar to that of Joseph Greenberg, but his categories contrast sharply in that he does not group Egyptic, Berber, and Semitic languages together into an Afroasiatic phylum. Instead he sorts Egyptic into the same "Negro-Egyptian" category with the traditionally "Niger-Congo" and "Nilo-Saharan" languages while placing Semitic and Berber into their own, separate categories.
I've tended to assume Greenberg's system as the correct one due to its mainstream popularity, but in all honesty I am not sure if there really is anything wrong with Obenga's alternative system. It does seem to more closely match the recent genetic data, with ancient Egyptians grouping with stereotypical "true Negro" Africans rather than other Afrasan-speakers like Berbers or Horners. Of course linguistic heritage and population genetics do not always correlate, but the correspondence between the new genetic information and Obenga's classification system is still uncanny to me.
Besides, if Obenga's system became the consensus, it would kill the popular conflation of Egyptic with Semitic for good.
Alas, I know next to nothing about comparative linguistics, so I can't really evaluate either of the Obenga or Greenberg systems for myself on a proper, linguistic level.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers. Presumably, Ramses IIIs E-V38 isn't particularly close to examples further West either (reminder: E-M2 is older than E-M35), and the alleles uncovered by Hawass 2010 and 2012 are old pan African heritage:
quote:Take the Thuya Gene, for instance. Like most of the other Rare Genes from History, it has an African origin in deep time. But it experienced its greatest expansion in ancient Egypt, where it was carried by the queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of the temples.
(...)
We can imagine that Autosomal Thuya started out in East Africa about 100,000 years ago, and that her descendants were prominent in the first out-of-Africa group as well as in the Middle Easterners who helped spread agriculture, animal husbandry, religion and settled town life to Europe.
Please don't fall down that trap of going that route. These populations were mostly Saharan populations. Don't let the current North African genetic conditions fool you into reading particularly strong ties to Bantu speakers into these reports. Euronuts will take you up on your word that they're ''negroes'' and ask you to explain the low occurrence of certain hpa I makers in Dakleh Oasis and Kushite aDNA. They'll also ask you to explain morphological studies which make them look like hybrids compared to true negroes or Southern Sudanese Nilotes.
Don't give them that ammunition by interpreting the genetic results like Amun Ra et al have done in the past.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, Swenet is correct. Already we have too many Africanist scholars who caught up in this nonsense of a pan-African culture. Such is not only patently false but undermines Africa's indigenous cultural diversity. Of course there are strong cultural connections between Egypt and West Africa but as Swenet has pointed out, these connections are tied to early Saharan cultures.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: From the link: "Obenga is a politically active proponent of Pan-Africanism."
His linguistic theories are not objective, they are rooted in his socio-political views.
And Carletoon Coon is a politaclly active proponent of racialism and white supremacy and?
His anthropological theories are not objective and they are rooted in his socio-political views which is why his work is debunked crap. Yet YOU still espouse his work. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: For those of you who have never heard of this guy: Theophile Obenga
Theophile Obenga is a great scholar who worked closely with Diop. He also made great books about non-egyptian related African history (using linguistics).
Afro-asiatic language is derived from the old Hamito-Semitic language family itself derived from the Hamitic racist myth (a mythical group of Caucasian looking black people not related to other black African who live in Northern Africa, Eastern Africa and have founded the Ancient Egyptian civilization).
While most linguist have accepted Afro-asiatic as a linguistic groups without questioning. Its grouping is much weaker than the Indo-European supra-language family. There's much more inter-language diversity and the supra-language family would be much older than the Indo-European one.
Obenga's great (and voluminous) academic work demonstrate, by using the comparative linguistic (same one used for the Indo-European family), the linguistic correspondence (lexical, grammatical, etc) between various languages of the Negro-Egyptian supra-family. While Obenga went a long way to prove the existence and describe the Negro-Egyptian language family. Obenga is not alone in questioning the validity of the "Hamito-Semitic" aka the Afro-Asiatic language family.
Here excerpt from Language Classification: History and Method (2008) by Campbell and Poser:
quote: Comparison among Afroasiatic languages is complicated by long-term language contacts and borrowing , where Berber and Chadic have influenced one another; Chadic has also been influenced by both "Niger-Congo" and "Nilo- Saharan" languages ; Omotic and Cushitic share areal traits; Egyptian influenced Semitic and was itself influenced; Cushitic has Semetic; and Semitic. especially through Arabic in the last millennium . has influenced many others.
The Afroasiatic union has relied mainly on morphological agreements in the pronominal paradigms and the presence of a masculine-feminine gender distinction. This evidence is attractive, but not completely compelling . As for lexical comparisons, Afroasiatic scholars are in general agreement that the findings have been more limited and harder to interpret . Indeed, the two recent large-scale attempts at Afroasiatic reconstructing and assembling large sets of cognates, Ehret(1995) and Orel and Stoibova(1995), are so radically different from one another, with little in common, that they raise questions about the possibility of viable reconstruction in Afroasiatic . As Newman reports, "the list of supposed cognate lexical items between Chadic and other Afroasiatic languages presented in the past have on the whole been less reliable " (Newman 1980:13), Newman (2000:262) recognized that "in the opinion of some scholars, the evidence supporting the relationship between the Chadic language family and other languages in the groups in the Afroasiatic phylum, such as Semitic and Berber, is not compelling." Jungraithmayr's (2000:91) conclusions raise even graver doubts about being able to classify Chadic successfully:
To sum up: As long as there are deep-rooted properties like pronominal morphemes - existent in a given language that hint a certain genetic origin, these properties ultimately determine the classification of that language. However, since most of the ancient (Hamitosemitic) structures and properties of the Chadic languages have been destroyed or at least mutilated and transformed to the extent that they can hardly be identified as such any more , it is crucial to study these languages as deeply and thoroughly as possible.
He notes "the enormous degree of linguistic complexity we encounter in the Chadic language," with observation that the degree of "Africanization" has sometimes reached the point where, structurally speaking, the similarities between Chadic and Niger-Congo and/or Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in their immediate vicinity have become more striking than between Chadic and other Hamitosemitic languages, particularly Berber or Semetic . These obvious surface similarities between Chadic and non-Chadic languages in central Sudan put an additional task load on the researcher's shoulders (Jungraithmayr 2000:91)
Nevertheless, Newman is of the opinion that "some points of resemblance in morphology and lexicon are so striking that if one did not assume relationship, they would be impossible to explain away." There is methodological lesson to be gained in examining Newman's (1980) argument, which has been considered strong evidence of Afroasiatic. Newman (1980:19) argued that in
a range of Afroasiatic languages from whatever branch, one finds that the words for 'blood,' 'moon; 'mouth' 'name' and 'nose' for example tend to be masculine: 'eye', 'fire, ' and 'Sun,' feminine; and 'water', grammatically plural...where the overall consistency in gender assignment contrasts strikingly with the considerable diversity in form.
He compared fourteen words which have the same gender across the branches of Afroasiatic and assumed this coincidence proves the genetic relationship. (Newman's table has fifteen items, but 'egg' is listed as doubtful, and in any case, there may be a non-arbitrary real-world connection between 'egg' and female gender.) There are several problems with this claim. First, it violates the principle of permitting only comparisons which involve both sound and meaning (see Chapter 7)- Newman's comparisons involve only meaning (gender) and the forms compared are not for the most part phonetically similar. Second, it assumes that the choice of the gender marking is equally arbitrary for each of the forms involved, but this is clearly not the case. For example, 'sun' and 'moon' tend to be paired cross linguistically in a set where the two have opposite genders, one masculine, one feminine - Newman's Afroasiatic masculine 'moon' and feminine 'sun' parallels Germanic and many other languages. In many languages including some of the ones compared here, feminine gender is associated with 'diminutive' ; this may explain why the larger animals of the list, 'crocodile' and 'monkey.' have masculine gender. In any case, of Newman's fourteen, only four are feminine; perhaps. then, masculine is in some way the unmarked gender, the gender most likely to be found unless there is some reason for a morpheme to be assigned to the feminine class. As for 'water' being in the "plural," in three of the language groups compared, masculine and plural have the same form, so that it would be just as accurate in these to say that water' was "masculine." Also for 'water,' plurality and mass noun may be associated in some non-arbitrary way. The most serious problem is that of probability. As Nichols ( 1996a) shows, even if there were an equal probability for any word in the set to show up either as masculine or feminine (and as just argued this is not the case), for Newman's argument to have force, it would need to involve a closed set with exactly these words with no others being tested for gender parallels. The probability of finding this number of forms with identical gender across the six branches of Afroasiatic when an open sample of basic nouns is searched comes out to be roughly equivalent to the fourteen in Newman's table - the number he found is about what should be expected. The argument, then, has no force.
Nichols (1997a:364) sees Afroasiatic as "an atypically stock-Like quasistock." She says it is "routinely accepted as a genetic grouping, though uncontroversial regular correspondences cannot be found." though she thinks it has a "distinctive grammatical signature that includes several morphological features at least two of which independently suffice statistically to show genetic relatedness beyond any reasonable doubt." As pointed out above, some Afroasiatic languages lack these, while some neighboring non-Afroasiatic languages which have been influenced by them have these traits . This being the case, these traits are neither necessary nor sufficient to show the genetic relationship.
-Language Classification: History and Method (2008) by Campbell and Poser
We can note:
- Comparison among Afroasiatic languages is complicated by long-term language contacts and borrowing
- The similarities between Chadic and Niger-Congo and/or Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in their immediate vicinity have become more striking than between Chadic and other Hamitosemitic languages, particularly Berber or Semetic
- Afroasiatic is routinely accepted as a genetic grouping, though uncontroversial regular correspondences cannot be found .
And there is more. As noted in another thread, Ehret said:
quote: The initial warming of climate in the Belling-Allerød interstadial, 12,700-10,900 BCE, brought increased rainfall and warmer conditions in many African regions. Three sets of peoples, speaking languages of the three language families that predominate across the continent today, probably began their early expansions in this period. Nilo-Saharan peoples spread out in the areas around and east of the middle Nile River in what is today the country of Sudan. Peoples of a second family, Niger-Kordofanian (EDIT: to which Niger-Congo and Bantu are offshoots) , spread across an emerging east-west belt of savanna vegetation from the eastern Sudan to the western Atlantic coast of Africa. In the same era, communities speaking languages of the Erythraic branch of the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) family expanded beyond their origin areas in the Horn of Africa, northward to modern-day Egypt.
[...]
In the tenth millennium in the savannas of modern-day Mali, communities speaking early daughter languages of proto-Niger-Congo, itself an offshoot of the Niger-Kordofanian family , began to intensively collect wild grains, among them probably fonio.
So the homeland of the Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and Afro-asiatic language is set in the eastern part of the Sahara-Sahel-Nile Belt in the area close to Sudan or in Sudan (aka Kush/Nubia/Nile Valley). He also add that those 3 African language family probably began their expansions in the 12,700-10,900 BCE period.
In the final chapter of his book, Obenga locate the homeland of the Negro-Egyptian language in the Nile Valley from the African Great lakes regions and place it at a time before 10 000-8000 BCE.
Which wonderfully also correspond to archeological evidences from that era:
So Ehret, situate the homeland of the 3 main language groups in Africa (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and Afro-asiatic), which encompass almost all African languages spoken today, in area close to Sudan, which happens to be the about the same location as where Obenga place the homeland of the Negro-Egyptian family. Which happens to be the same location African people were living in the period prior to the Holocene/Green Sahara (see image A). The only place inhabited during that era due to the extreme aridity.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor Swenet (and apparently Djehuti) still having trouble integrating his old theories of 2003 or something with the recent DNA Tribes results about the Ancient Egyptian mummies (18th Dynasty, 20th Dynasty) and the fact that Ramses III is E1b1a, thus showing the close common origin (aka shared ancestry) of Central, Southern, Western Africans, other black African groups (to a lower degree) and Ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers. Presumably, Ramses IIIs E-V38 isn't particularly close to examples further West either (reminder: E-M2 is older than E-M35), and the alleles uncovered by Hawass 2010 and 2012 are old pan African heritage:
Ramses III is E1b1a which is common in the area under the Sahara in the exact regions where DNA Tribes locate the closest Ancient Egyptian modern relatives.
quote: Please don't fall down that trap of going that route. These populations were mostly Saharan populations.
Sure they were Saharan populations but in the era just before 10 000BC, the Sahara was too arid to be inhabited and most African people were actually living south of the Sahara. A date which correspond the spreading of the main African language groups (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and "Afro-asiatic" all part of the Negro-Egyptian family). It's only after the greening of the Sahara in the early Holocene that the population moved north to occupy the Green Sahara of that period. Only to later on, migrate toward the Nile Valley again and the rest of Africa (Sahel, West Africa, Central Africa, south of Northern African countries, etc) in search of oasis and greener pastures when the Sahara got dry again. Those African ethnic groups who went to the Nile Valley eventually founded the great Ancient Egyptians civilizations. Others went on create the great Ghana(Wagadu), Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc African civilizations.
quote: Don't let the current North African genetic conditions fool you into reading particularly strong ties to Bantu speakers into these reports. Euronuts will take you up on your word that they're ''negroes'' and ask you to explain the low occurrence of certain hpa I makers in Dakleh Oasis and Kushite aDNA. They'll also ask you to explain morphological studies which make them look like hybrids compared to true negroes or Southern Sudanese Nilotes.
Tell those Euronuts that we prefer using actual DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies instead of modern people to base our theories about the common ancestry of Ancient Egyptians and African people.
As for the hybrid morphological traits, they are merely indication of the internal African morphological diversity. African people no matter where they live today (including Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, East Africans, etc) have a great variability of morphological features. For example, many West Africans, Central Africans or South Africans have narrow nose aperture and wider nose aperture. Same as Kushite and Ancient Egyptian people.
quote: Don't give them that ammunition by interpreting the genetic results like Amun Ra et al have done in the past.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.
How are you defining "recently"? If the Egyptians share genetic affinities with "True Negro" Africans that don't appear in any non-Africans as per DNA Tribes, that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.
that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though.
I think you're misunderstanding me about the date of divergence of the 3 main African languages groups or Obenga's Negro-African language phylum (which I didn't clearly specify).
Ehret's date of 12,700-10,900 BCE only refer to **expansion** of the already existing Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and Afro-asiatic language speaking groups from their Sudan-Kush homeland.
As for Obenga's date about the Negro-Egyptian Nile Valley homeland, he places it **before** 10 000-8000 BCE.
I agree that such common Negro-Egyptian language must have started diverging into the current African languages families after the OOA migration and before 10 000BC. It's an informed guess based on the works of other people (Ehret, Tishkoff, etc).
At 10 000BC and afterwards (still true today), that whole region was composed of many ethnic groups, lineages and languages. I could even go further and suggest Ancient Egyptian as the language chosen to be the lingua franca. Even today, most African countries are composed of many ethnic groups and languages. People use lingua francas and multilingualism to communicate with each other.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.
How are you defining "recently"? If the Egyptians share genetic affinities with "True Negro" Africans that don't appear in any non-Africans as per DNA Tribes, that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though. [/qb]
But this is misleading. They don't just have ties with Niger Congo speakers, as evinced by the fact that large portions of the Great Lakes sample comprises of Africans that don't speak Niger-Congo languages, yet, this region is about equidistant to Egyptian aDNA, compared to the Southern Africa region. See some of the populations in their Great Lakes region (p6):
Its also important to keep in mind that E-V38 in Egypt stems from different events than the STRs values found by Hawass et al 2010 and 2012. These alleles are found in Africans regardless of what level of E-V38 they have (e.g., Alur Nilotes with 96.3% ''Great Lakes'' component). Also, E-M35 and derivatives like E-M78 cannot play a role in Egyptian skeletal remains, cultures and events that predate ~20ky ago, but E-V38, A3b2-M13 and B-M60 could have (and would have).
E-M35 becoming dominant may have something to do with E-V38, A3b2-M13 and B-M60 dwindling in frequency. E-M35 is found in all samples, E-V38, A3b2-M13 and B-M60 aren't (even though they're all founding haplogroups in Egypt and E-M35 is much younger). The latter three also don't necessarily occur together. This seems especially true in the case of the earliest Nubian aDNA (Neolithic) where A3b2-M13 seems to occur separately from B-M60, which is unlike modern Nilote Y chromosome composition.
It seems like these founding haplogroups were brought there by separate events. If so, the ubiquitous presence of much younger E-M35, coupled with the (somewhat lesser) consistency with which E-V38 pops up in Egypt (Northern and Southern), might hint at the scenario that it caused a once prominent E-V38 to dwindle in frequency. If it caused E-V38 to dwindle, E-V38 would have to precede it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And Carletoon Coon is a politaclly active proponent of racialism and white supremacy and?
His anthropological theories are not objective and they are rooted in his socio-political views which is why his work is debunked crap. Yet YOU still espouse his work. [/QB]
Coon was apolitical, as is race realism. Those that deny races exist are the ones following political agendas.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Theophile Obenga is wrong when he separate Semitic language from African language/Negro Egyptian.According to Arthur Dyott Thompson quoted im MTsar Astro-Theology the Hebrew language was the sacred language of the Egyptian priest.There was two languages in Ancient Egypt the popular language call CBT and the sacred languages name ABR/Ambres/Hebrew meaning passage, transition, explanation.Hebrew in short the language which enables men to pass from one meaning to another.
According to the Egyptian Romany by M Gadalla Canaanite, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are connected languages that come from the language Mudar aka Medu Neter of Egyptian immigrant of the moab region.
According to Catherine Acholunu Gram code the Ibo/Gram language is similar to Kanaanite, Sumerian, Celtic, English, Egyptian languages.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.
How are you defining "recently"? If the Egyptians share genetic affinities with "True Negro" Africans that don't appear in any non-Africans as per DNA Tribes, that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though.
Egyptian is closely related to Niger-Congo. Below I discuss the origin of the Niger-Congo languages:
posted
We also have to keep in mind some things like Niger-Congo is now thought to be a branch of Nilo-Saharan, thus giving us Kongo-Saharan. This would leave us with three branches of African languages: Kongo-Saharan, Khoisan and Afrisan.
Dr. Rkhty Amen, linguist and Egyptologist, in her article titled "The Unity of African Languages" in Karenga and Carruthers (1986) _Kemet and the African Worldview: Research, Rescue and Restoration_ gives us some real insight into the connectedness of these people and ancient Egyptians. But before we quote from here, let's first put some context derived from here 2010 book on learning /mdw nTr/.
quote:"There were many different dialects spoken in Kemet all along the Hapy itru (Nile River) from time immemorial. Mdw Ntr writing was used to communicate by people who spoke many different dialects. The picture words meant the same to everyone no matter what dialect they spoke. The vowels were not written in Medu Neter. The absence of vowels in the writing made it possible for everyone, no matter what dialect they spoke, to understand the writing, and still use their own unique pronunciation. There were also temporal dialects, these dialects are commonly referred to by scholars as Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian and Coptic, which is the final stage of the language. Coptic had several dialects of its own, namely, Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, and Achmimic. The grammar and vocabulary differed in these stages. Coptic is the only stage of the language wherein vowels were written, so it is by way of Coptic and other related African languages that we know something about original pronunciation of words…Coptic is no longer spoken although it still survives as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. (Amen, 2010: 3-4)."
Add that to her earlier statement from here 1986 article that (speaking on the concept of Old, Middle and New Kingdom Egyptian):
quote:"These designations, however, reflect not so much stages in the development of Egyptian language per se as, rather stages in the evolving political history of the various dynasties. What Gardiner called "Late Egyptian" was the dialect of Upper Kemet, traces of which were already noticed in the Old Kingdom in Upper Kemetic sites.3 In Dynasties VI-XI, the vernacular called "Middle Egyptian" was predominant in Kemet. During the First intermediate Period this dialect spread northward. By the late XIth and early XIIth Dynasties so-called Late Egyptian forms occur on all types of monumental inscriptions. When the Nubian regime regained power in the XVIIIth Dynasty, the vernacular of Upper Kemet spread with the establishment of the New Kingdom. Amen Hotep II (1450) composed a letter to his viceroy in Nubia and in it he used what has come to be called Late Egyptian: in other words, his language was that of Nubia or Upper Egypt."
Now juxtapose this information from Dr. Claude Rilly. I have translated here from the French.
quote: "4. In France, one traditionally calls this family "Hamito-Semitic". Greenberg's appellation is a very neutral term indicating a family straddling Africa and Asia, although that for the latter, only the Middle East is represented: according to geographers, Lebanon (sic)or Arabia are in Asia because they are located on the other side of the Red Sea .
Afro-Asiatic comprises a great number of sub-families. That of Beja is called Cushitic, simply because of an error: one erroneously thought, for a long time, that Meroitic was a language from this family, related to Beja. The Kingdom of Meroe was in the past called the Kingdom of Kush. From "Kush", one created "Cushitic" and kept this appellation, even after that scholars had shown that the language of Kush was not "Cushitic", but Nilo-Saharan. Inside of Cushitic, there exists several groups. Beja is the only member of the Northern Cushitic group."
This tells us a lot here. We know the 25th Dynasty was definitely a Kushitic dynasty, but we know other periods had Kushite families. The New Kingdom "dialect" spread when the Kushites took over Egypt and it became the "New Kingdom" vernacular. If the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, then the New Kingdom "dialect" is not an Egyptian language, but a Nilo-Saharan language which would explain its different grammar, also noted by Rkhty in her esay. This was the language of Upper Egypt or parts of it, even in the old kingdom as Amen and her sources noted. This explains the close relationship to Egyptian and Kalenjiin, a Nilo-Saharan language (see the books by Dr. Kipkoeech araap Sambu: _the Kalenjiin People's Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis, 2nd Edition (2007); _The Misiri Legend Explored: A linguistic inquiry into the Kalenjiin People's Oral Tradition of Ancient Egyptian Origin_.
The Kalenjiin people, for example, currently lives from South Sudan to the Great Lakes region, the exact same places where the DNA Tribes data currently finds correspondences between the mummies and modern peoples. Remember the statement from Diodorus Siculus which he notes, "The laws, customs, religious observances and letters of the ancient Egyptians closely resembled the Ethiopians, the colony still observing the customs of their ancestors." Remember in Book Three Diodorus stated that, ""The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out of them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent; but a sea at the beginning of the world, and that it was afterwards made land by the river Nile."
For those that don't know, the Kushites are the Ethiopians and the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. If the Egyptian language and culture comes from the "Ethiopians," then the language and customs are Kongo-Saharan which corresponds, again, to the DNA Tribes data which shows the affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers. Day-by-Day Obenga is being vindicated. Other work is being done which will demonstrate that Bantu didn't originate in Cameroon/Nigeria, but in the Sahara and moved south through the forest belt. This too is also supported by the DNA Tribes data:
Ramesses III and African Ancestry in the 20th Dynasty of New Kingdom Egypt:
quote:"In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years (see Figure 1)
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: We also have to keep in mind some things like Niger-Congo is now thought to be a branch of Nilo-Saharan, thus giving us Kongo-Saharan. This would leave us with three branches of African languages: Kongo-Saharan, Khoisan and Afrisan.
The Kongo-Saharan language family is an interesting concept that I was going to post about. Obenga don't believe in Afrisan (Afro-Asiatic) language. He has demonstrated linguistically its non-existence. He separate the African branches of Afro-Asiatic from the Semitic branches. Afro-Asiatic becomes two branches called Cushitic and Chadic. While Semitic are not genetically related to them (beside through borrowing of course). Cushitic and Chadic along with Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian are both children of the Negro-Egyptian language group. Which we can call I guess Afro-Egyptian language group to sound more modern. There's nothing wrong with combining Obenga's Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian group into Kongo-Saharan if there's really linguistic justification to do so. Some linguists thinks there is. Something I was going to post about.
quote: Dr. Rkhty Amen, linguist and Egyptologist, in her article titled "The Unity of African Languages" in Karenga and Carruthers (1986) _Kemet and the African Worldview: Research, Rescue and Restoration_ gives us some real insight into the connectedness of these people and ancient Egyptians. But before we quote from here, let's first put some context derived from here 2010 book on learning /mdw nTr/.
quote:"There were many different dialects spoken in Kemet all along the Hapy itru (Nile River) from time immemorial. Mdw Ntr writing was used to communicate by people who spoke many different dialects. The picture words meant the same to everyone no matter what dialect they spoke. The vowels were not written in Medu Neter. The absence of vowels in the writing made it possible for everyone, no matter what dialect they spoke, to understand the writing, and still use their own unique pronunciation. There were also temporal dialects, these dialects are commonly referred to by scholars as Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian and Coptic, which is the final stage of the language. Coptic had several dialects of its own, namely, Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, and Achmimic. The grammar and vocabulary differed in these stages. Coptic is the only stage of the language wherein vowels were written, so it is by way of Coptic and other related African languages that we know something about original pronunciation of words…Coptic is no longer spoken although it still survives as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. (Amen, 2010: 3-4)."
Personally, I don't think every Ancient Egyptian spoke mere dialect of the same language. But actually different languages (further dividable into dialects of course). Almost as different (and similar) as modern Cushitic is to Chadic. Exactly as different (and similar) as ancient Cushitic is to ancient Chadic. IMO, Ancient Egyptian was a lingua franca. People in Ancient Egypt spoke different languages including Ancient Egyptian itself but also other languages such as Ancient(old) Cushitic, Ancient Nubian, ancient Niger-Kordofanian and Ancient Chadic. People from other language groups in Ancient Egypt knew Ancient Egyptian as a second language along with their own language. The idea that the medu neter allowed dialects to understand the words is only applicable if the dialects are very similar since most medu neter are phonograms not ideogram. Phonograms only give ideas about the sound of a word not its meaning. Useless for people speaking different languages which (by definition) usually have different words for the same things.
quote: Add that to her earlier statement from here 1986 article that (speaking on the concept of Old, Middle and New Kingdom Egyptian):
quote:"These designations, however, reflect not so much stages in the development of Egyptian language per se as, rather stages in the evolving political history of the various dynasties. What Gardiner called "Late Egyptian" was the dialect of Upper Kemet, traces of which were already noticed in the Old Kingdom in Upper Kemetic sites.3 In Dynasties VI-XI, the vernacular called "Middle Egyptian" was predominant in Kemet. During the First intermediate Period this dialect spread northward. By the late XIth and early XIIth Dynasties so-called Late Egyptian forms occur on all types of monumental inscriptions. When the Nubian regime regained power in the XVIIIth Dynasty, the vernacular of Upper Kemet spread with the establishment of the New Kingdom. Amen Hotep II (1450) composed a letter to his viceroy in Nubia and in it he used what has come to be called Late Egyptian: in other words, his language was that of Nubia or Upper Egypt."
Now juxtapose this information from Dr. Claude Rilly. I have translated here from the French.
quote: "4. In France, one traditionally calls this family "Hamito-Semitic". Greenberg's appellation is a very neutral term indicating a family straddling Africa and Asia, although that for the latter, only the Middle East is represented: according to geographers, Lebanon (sic)or Arabia are in Asia because they are located on the other side of the Red Sea .
Afro-Asiatic comprises a great number of sub-families. That of Beja is called Cushitic, simply because of an error: one erroneously thought, for a long time, that Meroitic was a language from this family, related to Beja. The Kingdom of Meroe was in the past called the Kingdom of Kush. From "Kush", one created "Cushitic" and kept this appellation, even after that scholars had shown that the language of Kush was not "Cushitic", but Nilo-Saharan. Inside of Cushitic, there exists several groups. Beja is the only member of the Northern Cushitic group."
This tells us a lot here. We know the 25th Dynasty was definitely a Kushitic dynasty, but we know other periods had Kushite families. The New Kingdom "dialect" spread when the Kushites took over Egypt and it became the "New Kingdom" vernacular. If the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, then the New Kingdom "dialect" is not an Egyptian language, but a Nilo-Saharan language which would explain its different grammar, also noted by Rkhty in her esay. This was the language of Upper Egypt or parts of it, even in the old kingdom as Amen and her sources noted. This explains the close relationship to Egyptian and Kalenjiin, a Nilo-Saharan language (see the books by Dr. Kipkoeech araap Sambu: _the Kalenjiin People's Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis, 2nd Edition (2007); _The Misiri Legend Explored: A linguistic inquiry into the Kalenjiin People's Oral Tradition of Ancient Egyptian Origin_.
The Kalenjiin people, for example, currently lives from South Sudan to the Great Lakes region, the exact same places where the DNA Tribes data currently finds correspondences between the mummies and modern peoples. Remember the statement from Diodorus Siculus which he notes, "The laws, customs, religious observances and letters of the ancient Egyptians closely resembled the Ethiopians, the colony still observing the customs of their ancestors." Remember in Book Three Diodorus stated that, ""The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out of them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent; but a sea at the beginning of the world, and that it was afterwards made land by the river Nile."
For those that don't know, the Kushites are the Ethiopians and the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. If the Egyptian language and culture comes from the "Ethiopians," then the language and customs are Kongo-Saharan which corresponds, again, to the DNA Tribes data which shows the affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers. Day-by-Day Obenga is being vindicated. Other work is being done which will demonstrate that Bantu didn't originate in Cameroon/Nigeria, but in the Sahara and moved south through the forest belt. This too is also supported by the DNA Tribes data:
Although Obenga don't see Ancient Egyptian as a Nilo-Saharan nor a Niger-Kordofanian language. He sees Ancient Egyptian as a different branch of the Afro-Egyptian language family to which Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian are other branches of.
So according to Obenga. At one time, there were people who were living together and spoke a language we call retroactively Afro-Egyptian (Negro-Egyptian) like Indo-European. Then those people separated from each other through let's say migration into the Greening Sahara eventually making their languages unintelligible from each others. Thus creating different branches of the Afro-Egyptian family. That is Ancient Egyptian, Cushitic, Chadic, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian. Why? Because those people were forced to join each others (again) along the Nile after the dessication of the Sahara following the green Sahara period. People who were previously separated from each others to some degree were forced to move along the Nile in search of greener pastures. Narmer joining them together into the Ancient Egyptian empire.
Some linguists thinks Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian can be combined into a family we can call Kongo-Saharan. Which would still be descended from the Afro-Egyptian (Negro-Egyptian) family of course.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Now juxtapose this information from Dr. Claude Rilly. I have translated here from the French.
quote: "4. In France, one traditionally calls this family "Hamito-Semitic". Greenberg's appellation is a very neutral term indicating a family straddling Africa and Asia, although that for the latter, only the Middle East is represented: according to geographers, Lebanon (sic)or Arabia are in Asia because they are located on the other side of the Red Sea .
Afro-Asiatic comprises a great number of sub-families. That of Beja is called Cushitic, simply because of an error: one erroneously thought, for a long time, that Meroitic was a language from this family, related to Beja. The Kingdom of Meroe was in the past called the Kingdom of Kush. From "Kush", one created "Cushitic" and kept this appellation, even after that scholars had shown that the language of Kush was not "Cushitic", but Nilo-Saharan. Inside of Cushitic, there exists several groups. Beja is the only member of the Northern Cushitic group."
This tells us a lot here. We know the 25th Dynasty was definitely a Kushitic dynasty, but we know other periods had Kushite families. The New Kingdom "dialect" spread when the Kushites took over Egypt and it became the "New Kingdom" vernacular. If the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, then the New Kingdom "dialect" is not an Egyptian language, but a Nilo-Saharan language which would explain its different grammar, also noted by Rkhty in her esay. This was the language of Upper Egypt or parts of it, even in the old kingdom as Amen and her sources noted. This explains the close relationship to Egyptian and Kalenjiin, a Nilo-Saharan language (see the books by Dr. Kipkoeech araap Sambu: _the Kalenjiin People's Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis, 2nd Edition (2007); _The Misiri Legend Explored: A linguistic inquiry into the Kalenjiin People's Oral Tradition of Ancient Egyptian Origin_.
The Kalenjiin people, for example, currently lives from South Sudan to the Great Lakes region, the exact same places where the DNA Tribes data currently finds correspondences between the mummies and modern peoples. Remember the statement from Diodorus Siculus which he notes, "The laws, customs, religious observances and letters of the ancient Egyptians closely resembled the Ethiopians, the colony still observing the customs of their ancestors." Remember in Book Three Diodorus stated that, ""The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out of them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent; but a sea at the beginning of the world, and that it was afterwards made land by the river Nile."
For those that don't know, the Kushites are the Ethiopians and the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. If the Egyptian language and culture comes from the "Ethiopians," then the language and customs are Kongo-Saharan which corresponds, again, to the DNA Tribes data which shows the affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers. Day-by-Day Obenga is being vindicated. Other work is being done which will demonstrate that Bantu didn't originate in Cameroon/Nigeria, but in the Sahara and moved south through the forest belt. This too is also supported by the DNA Tribes data:
Although Obenga don't see Ancient Egyptian as a Nilo-Saharan nor a Niger-Kordofanian language. He sees Ancient Egyptian as a different branch of the Afro-Egyptian language family to which Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian are other branches of.
So according to Obenga. At one time, there were people who were living together and spoke a language we call retroactively Afro-Egyptian (Negro-Egyptian) like Indo-European. Then those people separated from each other through let's say migration into the Greening Sahara eventually making their languages unintelligible from each others. Thus creating different branches of the Afro-Egyptian family. That is Ancient Egyptian, Cushitic, Chadic, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian. Why? Because those people were forced to join each others (again) along the Nile after the dessication of the Sahara following the green Sahara period. People who were previously separated from each others to some degree were forced to move along the Nile in search of greener pastures. Narmer joining them together into a Ancient Egyptian empire.
Some linguists thinks Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian can be combined into a family we can call Kongo-Saharan. Which would still be descended from the Afro-Egyptian (Negro-Egyptian) family of course.
The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.
There is increasing evidence that the Beja may provide a key to fully understanding the Meroitic language. Some years ago I deciphered the Kharamadoye inscription.
…… Hrmdoye ne qor ene ariteñ lne mdes ne mni-t kene mk lebne ye re qe-ne q yi-t hl-ne y es bo he-ne q r lebne tro. S-ne ariteñ net er ek li s-ne d-b li lh ne q r kene qor ene mnpte.
This was heard already before 1670 years at a moment the Blemmyan King Kharamadoye drove his compatriots to a point of national statehood at the northern area of the then ailing Meroitic kingdom in what is today's Sudanese North and Egyptian South. Using Meroitic scripture, the scribes of Kharamadoye immortalized down to our times an inscription on walls of the Mandulis temple at Talmis (modern Kalabsha). The beginning of the inscription reads in a plausible English translation as follows:
Kharamadoye the monarch and chief of the living Ariteñ, the great son and patron of Amani, you (who) revitalizes (man). The lord's voyage of discovery indeed gives the creation of Good. Act (now Amani) he travels to support good. Make a good welfare swell (for) the offering of the Chief, (he) desires indeed the restoration of eminence. The patron of good Ariteñ bows in reverence (before Amani) to evoke exalted nourishment (for) the patrons to leave a grand and exalted legacy to behold good. Oh Amani make indeed (a) revitalization (of) the monarch (and) commander of Great Napata…..”
When I first saw this claim that the Beja, represented the Blemmyan people of the Meroitic and Egyptian inscriptions I thought it might be hollow indeed. But after comparing Meroitic to Beja, the claim has considerable merit.
To test the hypothesis that the Beja language was related to meroitic, I compared Meroitic and Beja. The Beja material comes from Klaus and Charlotte Wedekind and Abuzeinab Musa, Beja Pedagogical Grammar (http://www.afrikanistik-online.de/archiv/2008/1283/beja_pedagogical_grammar_final_links_numbered.pdf ) ,
What I found from this cursory examination was most interesting. I will need to gather more vocabulary items from Beja, but I did find a number of matches:
Meroitic ……English……….. Beja i ‘arrive at this point’ ………… bi ‘went’ t ‘he, she’ ……………………..ta ‘she’ ya ‘go’………………………….yak ‘start’ rit ‘look’……………………….rhitaa ‘you saw’ an(a) plural suffix……………..aan ‘these’ d(d) ‘say’………………………di(y) ‘say’ lb ‘energy, dynamic…………liwa ‘burn’ ken ‘to realize’……………….kana ‘to know’ bk ‘ripen’……………………..bishakwa ‘to be ripe’
The vocabulary items are interesting, but since they come from a grammar book there was not enough to provide an extensive comparison.
Meroitic and Beja share many grammatical features. For example, the pronouns are usually can be placed in front or at the end verbs e.g., Beja ti bi ‘she went’, Meroitic t-i ‘he goes’. In Beja, adi is used to indicate complete action Taman adi ‘I ate it completely’, Meroitic –a, serves the same purpose akin ne a ‘he has become completely learned’. In both languages the adverb is placed behind the noun Beja takii-da ‘small man’, Meroitic pt ‘praise’: pt es ‘manifest praise’. In Beja the future tense is form by ndi, Tami a ndi “I will eat’, Meroitic –n, s-ne yo-n Aman ‘The patron will bow in reverence to Aman’.
This makes it clear to me that the Beja language may be related to Meroitic and that the Beja represent the Blemmy nation of Old.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.
Ok, but isn't Beja a Cushitic language?
Isn't it possible that the similarity between Meroitic and other African languages like Beja or Niger-Congo languages be attributable to the days of the Negro-Egyptian language, that is before the differentiation into the language family we know now as Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian, Niger-kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan? All those languages (and Meroitic) sharing some similar words and grammar form because they are all descendant from the Negro-Egyptian phylum?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Amun-Ra The Ultimate, one has to keep in mind that I don't necessarily accept Obenga's groupings as well. Because other than Afro-Asiatic, he keeps all of the other groupings, yet Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan and the West Atlantic branch of Niger-Congo also fall short to the same demands as Afrisan. See discussions in Heine and Nurse _African Languages: AN Introduction (2000)_ and Childs _An Introduction to African Languages (2003)_.
Obenga didn't go far enough, back then, to reclassifying these other language families for which the comparative method cannot establish a predialectical parent. Besides this point, the evidence given by Reilly and Rhkty is that there were different languages being spoken in Egypt and the language of the New Kingdom was actually the language of Upper Egypt from which the Egyptian culture and language derived. This language was of the Kushite/Ethiopian people and the ancient Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (Not cushitic), which is simply Kongo-Saharan. This is supported by later Greek writers such as Diadorus.
So when we see these genetic and linguistic affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers, it all fits together with the Egyptian data. I have been studying these languages, customs and artistic features for a number of years now and the more and more evidence is revealed, the more affinities Egypt shows with Central And West Africa. I will be writing a paper soon on the concept of writing in Egypt and how Egypt fossilized an ancient bantu concept for writing in the actual hieroglyphs; not to mention the class aspect of the language.
The whole classification process needs to be redone and the criteria needs to be reevaluated.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: This language was of the Kushite/Ethiopian people and the ancient Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (Not cushitic), which is simply Kongo-Saharan. This is supported by later Greek writers such as Diadorus.
So when we see these genetic and linguistic affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers, it all fits together with the Egyptian data. I have been studying these languages, customs and artistic features for a number of years now and the more and more evidence is revealed, the more affinities Egypt shows with Central And West Africa.
So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I've been trying to post something for days but I was blocked for some reason.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Poor Swenet (and apparently Djehuti) still having trouble integrating his old theories of 2003 or something with the recent DNA Tribes results about the Ancient Egyptian mummies (18th Dynasty, 20th Dynasty) and the fact that Ramses III is E1b1a, thus showing the close common origin (aka shared ancestry) of Central, Southern, Western Africans, other black African groups (to a lower degree) and Ancient Egyptians.
What is there to integrate??! These findings support what we have been saying all along-- that Ancient Egyptians were Africans having ties and relations to other Africans. However, such a fact is a far cry from saying the Egyptians were close relatives even linguistically of Niger-Congo speakers! Even if Ramses carried E1b1b instead, that does not in anyway change things as there are E1b1b carriers in West Africa as well, mostly in the northern areas. So what is your point?
quote:Ramses III is E1b1a which is common in the area under the Sahara in the exact regions where DNA Tribes locate the closest Ancient Egyptian modern relatives.
Yes, but that does not make him a Niger-Congo speaker anymore than someone carrying E1b1b is an Afrisian speaker.
quote:Sure they were Saharan populations but in the era just before 10, 000BC the Sahara was too arid to be inhabited and most African people were actually living south of the Sahara. A date which correspond the spreading of the main African language groups (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and "Afro-asiatic" all part of the Negro-Egyptian family). It's only after the greening of the Sahara in the early Holocene that the population moved north to occupy the Green Sahara of that period. Only to later on, migrate toward the Nile Valley again and the rest of Africa (Sahel, West Africa, Central Africa, south of Northern African countries, etc) in search of oasis and greener pastures when the Sahara got dry again. Those African ethnic groups who went to the Nile Valley eventually founded the great Ancient Egyptians civilizations. Others went on create the great Ghana(Wagadu), Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc African civilizations.
Yes but during neolithic times North Africa was wet and fertile and yes it was inhabited by various cultures but we have no evidence of Niger-Congo speakers in the Nile Valley. Only Nilo-Saharan and Afrisian speakers. This is not to say there were no Niger-Congo speakers at all, but there isn't any evidence for them. Don't you think it's rather bias to suggest Niger-Congo is synonymous with African.
quote:Tell those Euronuts that we prefer using actual DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies instead of modern people to base our theories about the common ancestry of Ancient Egyptians and African people.
As for the hybrid morphological traits, they are merely indication of the internal African morphological diversity. African people no matter where they live today (including Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, East Africans, etc) have a great variability of morphological features. For example, many West Africans, Central Africans or South Africans have narrow nose aperture and wider nose aperture. Same as Kushite and Ancient Egyptian people.
And tell us something we don't already know.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Poor Swenet (and apparently Djehuti) still having trouble integrating his old theories of 2003 or something with the recent DNA Tribes results about the Ancient Egyptian mummies (18th Dynasty, 20th Dynasty) and the fact that Ramses III is E1b1a, thus showing the close common origin (aka shared ancestry) of Central, Southern, Western Africans, other black African groups (to a lower degree) and Ancient Egyptians.
What is there to integrate??! These findings support what we have been saying all along-- that Ancient Egyptians were Africans having ties and relations to other Africans. However, such a fact is a far cry from saying the Egyptians were close relatives even linguistically of Niger-Congo speakers! Even if Ramses carried E1b1b instead, that does not in anyway change things as there are E1b1b carriers in West Africa as well, mostly in the northern areas. So what is your point?
quote:Ramses III is E1b1a which is common in the area under the Sahara in the exact regions where DNA Tribes locate the closest Ancient Egyptian modern relatives.
Yes, but that does not make him a Niger-Congo speaker anymore than someone carrying E1b1b is an Afrisian speaker.
quote:Sure they were Saharan populations but in the era just before 10, 000BC the Sahara was too arid to be inhabited and most African people were actually living south of the Sahara. A date which correspond the spreading of the main African language groups (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and "Afro-asiatic" all part of the Negro-Egyptian family). It's only after the greening of the Sahara in the early Holocene that the population moved north to occupy the Green Sahara of that period. Only to later on, migrate toward the Nile Valley again and the rest of Africa (Sahel, West Africa, Central Africa, south of Northern African countries, etc) in search of oasis and greener pastures when the Sahara got dry again. Those African ethnic groups who went to the Nile Valley eventually founded the great Ancient Egyptians civilizations. Others went on create the great Ghana(Wagadu), Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc African civilizations.
Yes but during neolithic times North Africa was wet and fertile and yes it was inhabited by various cultures but we have no evidence of Niger-Congo speakers in the Nile Valley. Only Nilo-Saharan and Afrisian speakers. This is not to say there were no Niger-Congo speakers at all, but there isn't any evidence for them. Don't you think it's rather bias to suggest Niger-Congo is synonymous with African.
quote:Tell those Euronuts that we prefer using actual DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies instead of modern people to base our theories about the common ancestry of Ancient Egyptians and African people.
As for the hybrid morphological traits, they are merely indication of the internal African morphological diversity. African people no matter where they live today (including Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, East Africans, etc) have a great variability of morphological features. For example, many West Africans, Central Africans or South Africans have narrow nose aperture and wider nose aperture. Same as Kushite and Ancient Egyptian people.
And tell us something we don't already know.
I don't know why you keep repeating Niger-Congo speakers. I don't believe Ancient Egyptians spoke a Niger-Congo language or even a Niger-Kordofanian language (which indeed at its origin in Sudan). Like Obenga, I believe Ancient Egyptians spoke a language that is descended from a common Negro-Egyptian phylum. Niger-Kordofanian (Bantu/Niger-Congo), Nilo-Saharan, Cushite, and Chadic languages are like Ancient Egyptian also descendants of the Negro-Egyptian language phylum. The same way Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, German, Marathi, French, Italian, Punjabi, and Urdu are all descendant of a common Indo-European phylum. It doesn't mean Romans or Ancient Greek spoke Hindi or Russian!!
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that the whole classification system needs to be revisited. Again, the same criteria that doesn't make Afro-Asiatic a language phylum, is the same criteria that doesn't make Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan a language phylum. All African languages are related. How they are divided up and the criteria for the divisions has to be tackled from scratch by African researchers.
My studies over the years has convinced me that Egyptian is a Bantoid language as evidenced by the fossilization of noun-classes in Egyptian, with some still being very productive and hidden in the determinatives. The Nilo-Saharan connection is evident in the living cultures which argue they came from Egypt who now live in places like Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia. The deities they worship, the customs and rituals they display and do support their oral traditions. The linguistic data also supports a Kongo-Saharan origin of Egyptian. This has been the concentration of my own work for almost a decade and these issues can only, truly, be addressed systematically in articles and/or books as a forum isn't a good place for a detailed analysis.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mary repeats it because Mary is losing the argument so Mary has to misrepresent to try and gain the upper hand.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.
Ok, but isn't Beja a Cushitic language?
Isn't it possible that the similarity between Meroitic and other African languages like Beja or Niger-Congo languages be attributable to the days of the Negro-Egyptian language, that is before the differentiation into the language family we know now as Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian, Niger-kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan? All those languages (and Meroitic) sharing some similar words and grammar form because they are all descendant from the Negro-Egyptian phylum?
No. They share similar words because many of the same groups who lived in Egypt also lived in Kush.
The Meroitic Empire was a Confederation of city states in which people spoke varied languages like Nigeria today. Meroitic like ancient Egyptian was a lingua franca.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that the whole classification system needs to be revisited. Again, the same criteria that doesn't make Afro-Asiatic a language phylum, is the same criteria that doesn't make Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan a language phylum. All African languages are related. How they are divided up and the criteria for the divisions has to be tackled from scratch by African researchers.
Have you read Obenga's book? He's an African researcher and it is what he's been doing.
quote: My studies over the years has convinced me that Egyptian is a Bantoid language as evidenced by the fossilization of noun-classes in Egyptian, with some still being very productive and hidden in the determinatives. The Nilo-Saharan connection is evident
You say no to my question but then you say yes in your answer. So according to you Ancient Egyptian is NOT a Cushitic or Chadic language. That is Cushitic and Chadic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian. Maybe only language borrowing between Cushitic/Chadic and Ancient Egyptian exist. According to you Ancient Egyptian is a Bantoid language and according to you (and other linguists) Bantoid and Nilo-Saharan are both part of the Kongo-Saharan phylum. So Ancient Egyptian is a Kongo-Saharan language which exclude Cushitic and Chadic. This is contradiction with Obenga's analysis in which Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian and Kongo-Saharan (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo) are linguistically genetically related. Or am I wrong and you say Cushitic and Chadic as well as Bantoid are also linguistically genetically related to Ancient Egyptian?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.
Ok, but isn't Beja a Cushitic language?
Isn't it possible that the similarity between Meroitic and other African languages like Beja or Niger-Congo languages be attributable to the days of the Negro-Egyptian language, that is before the differentiation into the language family we know now as Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian, Niger-kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan? All those languages (and Meroitic) sharing some similar words and grammar form because they are all descendant from the Negro-Egyptian phylum?
I don't think so. I see Egyptian as a lingua franca.The nomes were inhabited by different ethnic groups who worshipped different gods. Egyptian was probably a lingua franca,used to unite the members of the Egytptian Empire into a united Nation, since the languages spoken in the diverse nomes were probably varied.
As you probably know African Empires like Mali, Zanj cities are characterized by populations that speak varied languages. A good case of the use of a lingua franca to unify coomunication between people belomging to the same polity is Swahili.
posted
I am very familiar with Obenga's works, in English and in French and you are missing the point. Saying that Egyptian is not Chadic or Cushitic is NOT the same as saying that Egyptian is not genetically related to these language families.
As I stated, all African languages are 'related', but relatedness on what level? How close? When did they begin to diverge? These are the questions that historical comparative linguists ask. Egyptian is related to Semitic, but Semitic and Egyptian does NOT share a predialectical parent. In other words, Semitic and Egyptian does not have the same mother. They may have the same Great Great Grandmother, but they do not share the same parents. The same with Chadic and Cushitic (which may have given birth to Semitic).
My initial post goes to demonstrate that there is a pool of languages from which Egyptian derived, either as its own language or as a hybrid due to contact (see Thomason & Kaufman _Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics (1988)_ for an example of the Maa language of East Africa (a mix of Cushitic and Bantu)).
Again, Cushitic (as a language family designation) is NOT the same as Kushitic the ancient Empire. The Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. The language of Upper Egypt, which became dominate in the New Kingdom, was that of the Kushites which was a Kongo-Saharan language. This is why there are so many affinities and fossilizations with Bantu and Niger-Congo in Egyptian. But Nilo-Saharan best explains many of the grammatical features that have been mis-assigned: i.e., "the feminine /-t/ suffix."
My argument, as of now, here is that the designations "old, middle, and new kingdom (even Coptic)" Egyptian are not "stages" of the same language, but different related languages that became dominant during these periods with the shift of different governments.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that the whole classification system needs to be revisited. Again, the same criteria that doesn't make Afro-Asiatic a language phylum, is the same criteria that doesn't make Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan a language phylum. All African languages are related. How they are divided up and the criteria for the divisions has to be tackled from scratch by African researchers.
Have you read Obenga's book? He's an African researcher and it is what he's been doing.
quote: My studies over the years has convinced me that Egyptian is a Bantoid language as evidenced by the fossilization of noun-classes in Egyptian, with some still being very productive and hidden in the determinatives. The Nilo-Saharan connection is evident
You say no to my question but then you say yes in your answer. So according to you Ancient Egyptian is NOT a Cushitic or Chadic language. That is Cushitic and Chadic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian. Maybe only language borrowing between Cushitic/Chadic and Ancient Egyptian exist. According to you Ancient Egyptian is a Bantoid language and according to you (and other linguists) Bantoid and Nilo-Saharan are both part of the Kongo-Saharan phylum. So Ancient Egyptian is a Kongo-Saharan language which exclude Cushitic and Chadic. This is contradiction with Obenga's analysis in which Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian and Kongo-Saharan (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo) are linguistically genetically related. Or am I wrong and you say Cushitic and Chadic as well as Bantoid are also linguistically genetically related to Ancient Egyptian?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And Carletoon Coon is a politaclly active proponent of racialism and white supremacy and?
His anthropological theories are not objective and they are rooted in his socio-political views which is why his work is debunked crap. Yet YOU still espouse his work.
Coon was apolitical, as is race realism. Those that deny races exist are the ones following political agendas. [/QB]
That's the reason why his eugenic outdated crap is being debunked over and over again. By actual objective modern science.
You backwards thinking idiot. The more ancient Africa is being studied, the more it result in connections with ancient Egypt. The more humanity is being studied the more it destroys your backwards thinking race concept.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I am very familiar with Obenga's works, in English and in French and you are missing the point. Saying that Egyptian is not Chadic or Cushitic is NOT the same as saying that Egyptian is not genetically related to these language families.
As I stated, all African languages are 'related', but relatedness on what level? How close? When did they begin to diverge? These are the questions that historical comparative linguists ask. Egyptian is related to Semitic, but Semitic and Egyptian does NOT share a predialectical parent. In other words, Semitic and Egyptian does not have the same mother. They may have the same Great Great Grandmother, but they do not share the same parents. The same with Chadic and Cushitic (which may have given birth to Semitic).
A complete blasphemy for Obenga. In his comparative linguistic work, he has demonstrated that Semitic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian and other main African languages cited above at all beside through some language borrowing maybe (in both direction I would say). Although he relates Semitic with some African languages such as Ge'ez, Amharic and Tigrinya. I wonder if he would still place the homeland of those language in Africa?
posted
I would suggest that you study historical comparative linguistics and not rely on the information of one source so you can know the heart of the actual argument. Again, there is a difference between being 'related' and having the same predialectical parent. I don't have time to do an introduction course on this subject. To know the relatedness of Semitic and say Niger-Congo, you can read Dr. Modupe Oduyoye's (a linguist) _Words & Meaning in Yoruba Religion: Linguistic Connections in Yoruba, Ancient Egyptian & Semitic (1996)_. One cannot accuse these types of connections as being mere borrowing. Egyptian and Semitic are related, just not "closely" as I stated earlier.
You should really read Obenga's new works where he has modified his stance on a few issues. In the meantime, the latest analysis originates Semitic in the near-east, but still from a group of Africans who migrated into the Levant.
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East -- by Andrew Kitchen1,*, Christopher Ehret2, Shiferaw Assefa2 and Connie J. Mulligan1
It appears you are not too familiar with a lot of linguistic work. As I tried to convey to you in previous posts, Afro-Asiatic is a contested language family, but so is Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan, and parts of Niger-Congo. If you are an independent thinker and researcher you will have to reconcile the fact that if you are going to throw away AA, you have to throw away NS and Kh as the comparative method does not establish these as legitimate language families either, yet Obenga doesn't challenge these families, but keeps them as is. That is problematic for his whole argument and this is why I said the next generation of African researchers are going to have to do their own comparative work and come up with a totally different schema in order to reconcile the major issues in the current system: including Obenga's.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: A complete blasphemy for Obenga. In his comparative linguistic work, he has demonstrated that Semitic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian and other main African languages cited above at all beside through some language borrowing maybe (in both direction I would say). Although he relates Semitic with some African languages such as Ge'ez, Amharic and Tigrinya. I wonder if he would still place the homeland of those language in Africa?
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East -- by Andrew Kitchen1,*, Christopher Ehret2, Shiferaw Assefa2 and Connie J. Mulligan1
You have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the homeland of Semitic. I'm talking about the homeland of those languages, the "Sud Arabique" (South Arabic) language family. It seems to make sense that the homeland of Semitic is in the near east. I wonder if Obenga classifies the homeland of the "Sud Arabic" family (including African languages such as Ge'ez, etc) in Africa like Ehret and many linguists placed the homeland of the debunked Afro-Asiatic phylum in Africa. Personally, I think Obenga is right about the language family of Africa and I hope African linguists built on it.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote: I wonder if Obenga classifies the homeland of the "Sud Arabic" family (including African languages such as Ge'ez, etc) in Africa like Ehret and many linguists placed the homeland of the debunked Afro-Asiatic phylum in Africa.
No he doesn't. For Obenga these are languages of southern Arabs spoken, and some developed, in Africa though to me something about Gurage among others seems homegrown w/o import.
As far as I can make out, and I very well could be wrong, Obenga recognizes three unrelated language phyla native to geographical Africa and one spoken in Africa but considered of extra-African origin.
1) négro-égyptien 2) khoisan 3) berbère
He recognizes that Semitic languages are spoken in Africa but doesn't classify them as native to the geographical continent Africa calling them
4) sémitique de l'Afrique
He defines the Negro-Egyptian group as those languages related to if not actually arising from pharaonic Egyptian.
Tamazight (the designation that North Africans themselves have chosen for their language family as they deem the word Berber to be one forced on them by Greek, Roman, and later Arab colonialist invaders) is totally unrelated to pharaonic Egyptian per Obenga and thus excluded from the unity of the langues négro-africaines.
Of the familes considered to be Afrisan (Afroasiatic/Afroasian are misnomer terms since the birthplace of these languages is Africa -- except Semitic was born somewhere in the Levant -- and they are spoken nowhere in Asia)
CHAPITRE I. - Méthodologie p. 11 Principes de la linguistique historique. L'indo-européen. Critères légitimant la comparaison entre l'égyptien pharaonique, le copte et les langues négro-africaines modernes. Recommandations du Colloque égyptologique international du Caire en 1974.
CHAPITRE II. - Identification et documentation p. 19. Historique de la langue égyptienne. Dialectes coptes. Processus de l'emprunt fait au grec par le copte. Dictionnaires, lexiques et grammaires pharaoniques et coptes. Identification du mbochi. Mbochi et Bantu. Documentation scientifique sur le mbochi.
CHAPITRE III. - Phonétique historique de l'égyptien p. 29 Historique de la phonétique égyptienne. Copte et moyen égyptien: phonologie. Première approche relative à la vocalisation de l'égyptien pharaonique. Systèmes consonantiques pharaonique et copte. Voyelles coptes. Structure phonématique du copte.
CHAPITRE IV. - Définition et classement des phonèmes mbochi p. 53 Traits généraux. Consonnes. Voyelles. Analyse tonématique. Combinaison des phonèmes. Conclusio
CHAPITRE V. - Système phonologique du berbère p. 67 Documentation. Phonologie berbère: système consonantique et système vocalique. Observations phonologiques. Langues égyptienne et berbère: leur opposition irrémédiable
CHAPITRE VI. - Mythes chamito-sémitiques p. 79 Etymologie du mot " ham " ou " cham ". Structure morphologique du sémitique, de l'égyptien et du berbère: étude comparative systématique. Faits lexicologiques sémitiques, égyptiens et berbères: leur opposition fondamentale. Le " chamito-sémitique " ou l'" afro-asiatique ", une véritable escroquerie scientifique.
CHAPITRE VII. - Correspondances morphologiques entre l'égyptien et le négo-africain p. 97 Classes nominales et articles définis. Formation du pluriel. Catégories grammaticales de genre sexuel. Formation grammaticale d'abstraits. Verbe-copule " être ". Pronoms personnels égyptiens et négro-africains. Pronom personnel réfléchi. Adjectifs et leurs emplois grammaticaux. Adjectifs dits " nisbés ". Obtention du comparatif et du superlatif. Verbes et conjugaison verbale flexionnelle. Réduplication. Causatif. Particules verbales. Temps et modes. Formes simples et complexes du verbe: flexions verbales. Particules auxiliaires verbales (morphèmes copules). Expression du futur et tableau des éléments fonctionnels. Particularités verbales idiomatiques. Le " m " dit de prédication. Morphèmes négatifs: tableaux comparatifs. Particules de liaison: tableaux comparatifs.
CHAPITRE VIII. - Cbangements et Règles de correspondances phonétiques p. 181 Lois phonétiques (" sound laws "). Les données. Analyse des faits pharaoniques, coptes et négro-africains. Établissement de concordances phonétiques: les consonnes. Arbres généalogiques. Tableau d'ensemble. Phénomène de métathèse. Tableau. Établissement de concordances phonétiques: les voyelles. Tableaux évolutifs.
CHAPITRE IX. - Faits et correspondances lexicologiques p. 259 Remarques générales. Problème de l'emprunt linguistique et langues noncontiguës. Intervention du copte. Problème de l'héritage commun en linguistique. Valeur culturelle et historique de certains lexèmes égyptiens et négroafricain: "boeuf", "mouton/bélier", "singe/babouin" "éléphant", "hippopotame", "viande". Deuxième approche relative à la vocalisation de l'égyptien pharaonique: ancien égyptien/nuer/banda/mande. Confirmation par le négro-afticain de certaines lectures du pharaonique tenues pour douteuses. Catégories ontologiques égyptiennes répandues dans toute l'Afrique noire. Panthéon égyptien et divinités négro-africaines. Rapprochements lexicologiques entre l'ancien égyptien, le copte et le négro-africain.
CHAPITRE X. - Parlers négro-égyptiens. Leur classification p. 343 Le Négro-égyptien, acquisition fondamentale de la linguistique africaine renouvelée. Histoire ancienne du continent afticain et linguistique africaine. Nonexistence des langues dites " semi " bantu. Éclatement de vieilles barrières linguistiques imposées par des théories racistes entre les langues africaines. Nécessité d'une géographie linguistique en Aftique noire. Trois grandes familles linguistiques africaines: le négro-égyptien, le berbère et le khoisan. La famille négro-égyptienne avec toutes ses branches et tous ses sous-groupes. Le verbecopule " être " en négro-égyptien: comparaison systématique.
CHAPITRE XI. - Autres Parlers africains. Leur classification p. 361 Langues sémitiques de l'Aftique: groupe sémitique éthiopien. Quelques emprunts faits par ce groupe au couchitique. Parlers berbères actuels. Langues khoisan. Lexèmes hottentot. Comparaison entre le khoisan et le berbère: l'inexistence des langues dites " charnitiques ".
CONCLUSION p. 373
BIBLIOGRAPHIE p. 377
ANNEXES p. 395
I. - Tableau du Négro-égyptien p. 394 - II. - Tableau du Sémitique de l'Afrique p. 396 - III. - Tableau du Berbère p. 397 - IV. - Tableau du Khoisan p. 398.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 16, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
Chapter VI p.81
- Its is important when using linguistic comparative method to find cognates with a same morphological structure but with a similar semantic value.
Those two words have absolutely nothing in common in the three compared families.
In the same vein, when Semitic basic vocabulary items is uniliteral, Egyptian is biliteral: 3)"brother" - Akkadian axu; Ugaritic 'ax, Hebraïc 'aaH, Syriac 'aHaa, Arabic 'ax - Egyptian sn, Coptic son, sen san; - Berber gma (pl. aitma)
4)"voice" - Ugaritic g - Egyptian xrw, Coptic hrou, hroou
When Egyptian is uniliteral, Semitic is biliteral or triliteral: 5)"son" - Common Semitic +bn, Phoenician bl, Aramean br - Egyptian z3>s3 - Berber: yiwi "my son"/tarua "my sons"
- Ugaritic shpsh, Common Semitic shmsh - Egyptian r', Coptic rè - Berber Tafukt
All these words are necessarily inherited, but a lexical, morphological,phonetic & semantic analysis of them in Semitic, Egyptian & Berber is far from pointing towards a common origin of them all.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 18, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
The theory of Berber genetic isolation may be explained by: - a multigenetic origin of human language phylae - the fact that all human languages are actually related but not relatable due to loss of common features due to linguistic innovation over the ages; modern isolated languages would be of the latter type.
"Name" - Akkadian shumu; Ugaritic sheem, Hebraïc sheem, Aramean shum, Arabic 'ism, Ethiopian sEm, - Egyptian rn; Coptic ren ran len lan - Berber ism
Berber is an obvious borrowing from Semitic. Semitic shumu and Egyptian rn (sh vs r; m vs n) cannot be derived from a common root: it is an obvious fact:
"all" - Akkadian kaluu; Ugaritic kl, Hebraïc kol, Syriac kol - Egyptian nb; Coptic nim niben nifen nibi nibe - Berber kul ~kullu
Berber is an obvious borowing from Arabic; Semitic has a consistant consonantic structure within itself: k-l, but it clearly cannot be linked to Egyptian n-b.
It's again impossible to demonstrate the common origin of these forms.
Next is the question of the substantive feminine marking in the three branches/languages.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 19, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
Chap VII pp.85-86 http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3163/p1010104xh2.jpg For the word scorpio, Semitic shows a structure composed of a "double consonant" + a consonant while Egyptian has srq.t & Berber ighirdem, again totally different structures.
About the expression of grammatical gender of substantives, the situation is not as clear as some Hamito-Semiticists claim it to be.
Semitic languages distinguish two genders: masculine & feminine.
Semitic masculine nouns don't have a special marker while feminine use a -(a)t suffix: Akkadian sharr-u "king" sharrat-u "queen" Ugaritic il "god" ilt "goddess" Syriac biishaa "bad" biishtaa "bad (feminine)" Arabic malik "king" malikat "queen";
Egyptian displays the same pattern: s3 "son" s3.t "daughter";
Same with Berber, which displays a circumfix th-th (with th>t after a "n") amr'ar "old man" thamr'arth "old woman"; ushshen "jackal", thushshent "she-jackal";
However none of those are exclusive, or even dominant. In Hebrew & Syriac, feminine is most often ended by a simple -aa: Hebrew Toob "good", Toobaa "good (feminine); Syriac biish/biishaa (feminine). It seems to be the same for Neo-Punic, according to transcriptions of Hnt by Anna, alma for 'lmt while Phoenician & Moabite don't show this phenomenon. In Arabic there is also a feminine ended by -aa': 'asfar (m) SaaFraa' (f) "yellow" 'aSgar(m) Sugraa(f) "smaller"
There are also some Hebrew & Syriac feminines ending by -ay: Saray "Lady" (Hebrew), tu'yay "error" (Syriac); In Syriac, numeral feminine is -EE: 'eSrEE "ten" and 'Esree in numbers from 11 to 19. In Ethiopian though, the final -ee isn't associated with feminine gender.
There are also several cases of Semitic languages showing suffix -t not associated with feminine gender: Arabic xaliifat "caliph", Hebrew qoohelet "caliph" aren't feminine; Arabic nafs, Hebrew nepeS, Syriac napsha, Ethiopian nafs, "soul" are both feminine and masculine while Arabic 'arD, Hebrew 'ereS, Syriac 'ar'aa "earth" are feminine.
Actually, feminine morpheme aren't only used for the formation of feminine substantives, but also for diminutives, pejoratives, abstracts, collectives; they are all part of a very complex system that also deals with numbers.
In Berber, some nouns that design neither male or female have the feminine marker minus the final th: thimes "fire", thizi "collar", tharga "drain". Some substantives get their feminine from lost roots: azgar "ox", thafousnat "cow": the form afounas "ox" in Kel-Ouï Tuaregs, Beni Menacer, Riffian, Mzabites, Siwa. Also, ikerri "sheep", feminine "thikhsi seems to be the feminine form of a word retained in Guanche as a masculine:axa.
Coptic lost the Pharaonic -t feminine suffix: m3'.t "truth"> Coptic mE, mEE,mèi; sn "brother, snt "sister">Coptic son "brother", soonE "sister".
But in Pharaonic Egyptian, it has been possible to establish a chronology of the final -t whose loss had already began at the time of the Old Kingdom and that this actual grammatical gender was followed by a virtual grammatical gender in the whole Egyptian system.
Thus, because of the diversity of feminine suffixes in Berber & Semitic, it is quite premature to draw conclusions about genetic relationship between Berber, Semitic & Egyptian: the affix "t" to form the feminine is nor dominant nor systematic, into each branch (Semitic, Berber, Egyptien), let alone in a completely irreal Hamito-Semitic.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 21, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
Chap VII pp.86-87 http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/664/p1010105us2.jpg Some authors also pointed out the similarity between the expression of nominal plural in Egyptian and Semitic in support of the Hamito-Semitic hypothesis: - u, w for masculine plural - ut, wt for feminine plural
Facts are actually much more complex; Semitic internal and external masculine plurals, Semitic feminine and dual only have a very few in common with Egyptian masculine & feminine plurals, with Egyptian dual. The resemblance above definitely seems to be due to chance since there are so many plural morphologies in Semitic, as opposed to the only -w, -wt Egyptian ending.
- m or n with or without a vowel in Northwest Semitic;
Semitic internal masculine plural
Semiticists consider internal plurals as being inherited from Proto-Semitic; it is still widely used in Southern Semitic and remains of it are found in Northwest Semitic as well, although not in Ugaritic.
Disyllabic paradigms with a short vowel: - Arabic qit'at "piece", pl. qita' - Ethiopian 'Ezn "ear", pl. 'Ezan"
Monosyllabic paradigms with a short vowel: - Arabic 'aHmar "red", pl. Humr
Disyllabic paradigms with a long vowel at the second syllable or a second short vowel + the feminine suffix - Arabic baHr "sea", pl. biHar - Ethiopian Tabib "wiseman", pl. Tababt - Arabic kaafir "infidel" kafarat
Paradigms displaying consonantic lengthening: - Arabic kaatib "writer", pl. kuttab
Paradigms displaying prefixation as expression of the plural: - Arabic marad "disease" pl. 'amraad - South Arabic byt "house" pl. 'byt - Ethiopian lEbs "cloth", 'albaas
Paradigms displaying suffixation as expression of the plural: - Arabic djaar, pl. djiiraan "neighbours"
Quadriconsonants: - Arabic ''aqrib, pl. 'aqaarib "scorpio" - Ethiopian mal'ak, pl. malaa' Ekt - Arabic faaris, pl. fawaaris "cavaliers"
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
In North-West Semitic, Hebrew has the suffix -oot for the feminine plural:
code:
bEraakaa "blessing" bEraakoot "blessings"
Syriac has -aat in construct and emphatic forms, but aan in the absolute form, probably by analogy with the masculine plural -in.
Sometimes, the feminine plural ending is superposed to that of the singular:
code:
Ex:Ethiopian
barakat "blessing" barakataat "blessings"
But one must also note that the -aat ending is also found among masculine nouns.
code:
Ex:Akkadian iishaatu "fire" iishataatuu "fires"
In several Semitic languages are found singular feminine substantives but with a plural ending:
code:
Hebrew "year" shaanaa, pl. shaanim (shaanot constructed state) Syriac "garden" gannEta, pl. gannee
There are also feminine singular substantives with no morpheme indicating feminine gender;
code:
Akkadian "road" xarraanu, pl. xarranaatuu Hebrew "she-donkey" 'aaton, pl. 'atoonoot
The reason he has that much insisted on the formation of Semitic is because the Hamito-Semitic myth must be "destroyed". One lies to the layman when one says that Egyptian plural w~wt agrees with Semitic's. It is completely false since Egyptian can only be w~wt, never
The agreement between Semitic -uu & Egyptian -w has to be explained by chance, not by a common origin. If not, why would Egyptian have only inherited the Semitic nominative form out of the whole paradigm?
Egyptian has no internal/external plural distinction unlike Semitic: hence noun morphology is completely different in the two languages/Branches.
According to a linguist going by the name of René Basset, Berber's plural may be extrenal, internal, or both; the two latter patterns are similar to broken plurals found among Deutero-Semitic languages (Ethiopian, Midianite, Arabic); the latter, which has been thought to be a combinaison of the former is actually the oldest.
Only Semitic & Berber have broken plurals, Egyptian never does.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 26, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
According to late Beja specialist Werner Vycichl, Beja has three ways of expressing plural, reduplication (not found often), last vowel shortening & suffixation of -a. The two former, although not based on the same exact pattern of Semitic, are clearly non-concatenative, hence dissimilar to Old Egyptian suffixation.
Chapter VI, pp. 88-89
code:
Some examples of Berber "broken" plural formation: - aghiul "ass"; pl. ighial - asgass "year"; pl. isgassen - ir'allen "arm"; pl. ir'allen - illi "daughter"; pl. issi . Again Berber is totally different from Egyptian: - s3t "daughter"; pl. s3wt - ib "heart"; pl. ibw
How can one claim that Hamito-Semitic does actually exist relying on this?
The dual is frequently used in Akkadian, Ugaritic & Arabic, which may suggest that it is only secondary in other Semitic languages.
code:
Akkadian: - aan (dative), een (genitive), iin (accusative); Ugaritic: - aami (nominative), eemi (genitive/accusative) Hebraic: - ayn Syriac: - En~ een (only found as a retention in two words) Ethiopian: - ee (only found in a few cases) Arabic: - aani (nominative) - ayni (genitive/accusative)
While Berber doesn't make grammatical use of dual, it seems to agree with Semitic in occurrences of natural pairs (suffixes -in,-en, -an for dual are also found in Semitic) :
code:
- adar "foot" pl. idaren - tit "eye" pl. allen - aDalis "lip" pl. dilsan (Ghadamès) - aDaluy "lip" pl. iDlay (Ahaggar)
Semitic languages originally marked three principal cases:
code:
- nominative (sing. -u, pl. -uu, dual -aa), - genitive/accusative (sing. -i(genitive), -a(accusative) pl. -i, dual -ay), . Examples: Classical Arabic "king" Malik-u Malik-i Malik-a . Akkadian "good" Taab-u Taab-i Taab-a . There is however a class of words whose both genitive and accusative are formed with the same suffix -a.
In Egyptian, Pharaonic and Coptic there are absolutely no traces of casual marking. Why would the most archaic synchrony of Egyptian have lost any trace of Proto-Hamito-Semitic as Akkadian (a language contemporary to Pharaonic Egyptian) did?
The truth is that Hamito-Semitic does not exist. This is a myth with no morphological basis. A myth that must be destroyed by the real science.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 31, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
Erratum: Of course, at the end of my last post, I meant "why would have Akkadian retained the casual marking system while Egyptian didn't at all?" & vice versa.
In Semitic, the 3rd person independant personal pronouns are the following:
code:
singular masc. singular fem. plural masc. plural fem. Akkadian shu shi shunu shina Ugaritic hw hy hm hm Hebrew huu hii hEm(ma) hEn(na) Syriac huu hii hennoon henneen Arabic huwa hiya hum(uu) hunna Ethiopian wE'Etu yE'Eti 'Emuuntuu 'Emaantuu
Hence, there are forms with: - an initial sh: Akkadian & Southern Arabian (except Sabean) - an initial h (for the rest, except Ethiopian) (while Ethiopian dropped the initial h and then evolved from 'wu>wu>wE & 'iy>yi>yE and the following suffixation of the final element -tii/tuu)
The two forms are of Proto-Semitic origin, but which one is the earlier? There is no consensus on the question.
However, those forms are completely absent in Egyptian from Pharaonic to Coptic where there are no gutturals nor post-alveolar fricatives, only s (feminine sing.), f (masculine singular), and sn (plural) for the personal suffix pronoun; sw, sy, sn, st (masculine & feminine singular, masculine & feminine plural), for the deopendent personal pronouns; ntf, nts, ntsn for the independent personal pronouns.
Berber's dependent personal pronouns are the following:
The Berber suffix pronouns (s (singular), sn (pl. masc), snt (pl. fem.), agree a bit with Egyptian, but this a superficial resemblance: Berber doesn't have the Egyptian f.
Wolof has the same forms for the third person , singular & plural; Obenga cites Serge Sauneron who said that the resemblance cannot be due to chance and is thus necessarily due to a common origin of the two languages.
Egyptian has no relative pronouns while Semitic & Berber have.
code:
Singular Plural Dual
Akkadian shu, shi shashat shati shuut shaat sha Berber enni (invariant)
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted October 31, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:
glose Semitic Egyptian Berber sun shmsh (common Semitic) r’, re tafukt year sn (Lihyanitic) rnpt rompE rompi asggas shaanaa (Hebrew) sanat (Arabic) place macom (Phoenician) +maqam bw, ma ida night Arabic layl grH, D3w iD Ethiopian leelit Hebrew luun, liin Ugaritic lyn name +sumum, samum rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn ism, isEm take ! Sabat ! (Akkadian) m, mi, mo ameZ ear sinn (Arabic) msDr ameZZugh sEn (Ethiopian) teeth Akkadian uzun Tst axs Assyrian uzan Hebrew ‘ozen Arabic ‘uDn Ethiopian ‘Ezn brother Akkadian axu sn, son g-ma, ait-ma (pl.) Ugaritic ax Hebrew ‘aaH Syriac ‘aHaa Arabic ‘ax Epigraphic South Arabian ‘x Ethiopian ‘Exw (labialized x) to enter Akkadian ‘rb ‘q, 3q, ook ekSem Hebrew ‘rb Syriac ‘rb Arabic Grb Epigraphic South Arabian Grb black ‘aswad (Arabic) km, kamE, kEmi isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen blood dam (common Semitic) snf, snfw, snof idammen beautiful Hasan (Arabic) nfr, nofre, nofri iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki eternity ‘almiin (Eastern Syriac) D.t, nHH, EnEh god il (Ugaritic) nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE rEbbi (Arabic Allah) soul Hebrew nepesh b3, bai RroH, laRuaH (pl.) Syriac napsha Arabic nafs Ethiopian nafs river naaru (Akkadian) itrw asif hand yd, yad (common Semitic) Dr.t, ‘ (« arm ») ufus, afus house bayit (Hebrew) pr tigemmi head +ra’sh common Semitic tp, apE, afE agayyu, ixf reeshu Akkadian roosh Hebrew ra’s Arabic
In conclusion, the results of a strict linguistic analysis are the following :
- There are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies, personal and relative pronouns.
- About verbal themes, the use of reduplication does not have the same extension in Egyptian and in Semitic.
- Also, Egyptian doesn’t have the prefixal conjugation found and the derived compound verbal themes found in Semitic.
- The verbal forms sDm.f and sDm.n.f don’t exist in Semitic.
- Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic : Egyptian m « as, like » vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ; Egyptian xr « upon, above », vs Akkadian ‘l, Ugaritic ‘l, Syriac ‘al, Hebrew ‘al, Arabic ‘ala, Ethiopian la’la « upon, above ». Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon »
- Inherited lexical that can hardly be borrowed from a language to another (see examples above) even in a situation of cultural linguistic dominance are different in Semitic, Egyptian and Berber. Cardinal numbers (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 100, 1000) are also much different in the three language groups.
Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth.
To summarize are you saying that AEiean is NOT a Semitic Language. And Asiatic should be removed from AfroAsiatic?
Quote: "Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth"Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
All these COTONOU_BY_NIGHT reposts are translations from Obenga's old book as noted by page numbers.
I know A. Imhotep is a very busy man. Just hope he can find time to summarize some of Obenga's later works.
===
LAST TABLE REFORMATTED
code:
GLOSS SEMITIC EGYPTIAN BERBER . sun shmsh (common Semitic) r’, re tafukt year sn (Lihyanitic) rnpt, rompE, rompi asggas shaanaa (Hebrew) sanat (Arabic) place macom (Phoenician) bw, ma ida +maqam night layl (Arabic) grH, D3w iD leelit (Ethiopian) luun (Hebrew) liin (Hebrew) lyn (Ugaritic) name samum rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn ism, isEm +sumum take Sabat (Akkadian) m, mi, mo ameZ ear sinn (Arabic) msDr ameZZugh sEn (Ethiopian) teeth uzun (Akkadian) Tst axs uzan (Assyrian) ‘ozen (Hebrew) ‘uDn (Arabic) ‘Ezn (Ethiopian) brother axu (Akkadian) sn, son g-ma, ait-ma (pl.) ax (Ugaritic) ‘aaH (Hebrew) ‘aHaa (Syriac) ‘ax (Arabic) ‘x (Epigraphic South Arabian) ‘Exw (Ethiopian - labialized x) to enter ‘rb (Akkadian) ‘q, 3q, ook ekSem ‘rb (Hebrew) 'rb (Syriac) Grb (Arabic) Grb (Epigraphic South Arabian) black ‘aswad (Arabic) km, kamE, kEmi isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen blood dam (common Semitic) snf, snfw, snof idammen beautiful Hasan (Arabic) nfr, nofre, nofri iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki eternity ‘almiin (Eastern Syriac) D.t, nHH, EnEh god il (Ugaritic) nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE rEbbi Allah (Arabic) soul nepesh (Hebrew) b3, bai RroH, laRuaH (pl.) napsha (Syriac) nafs (Arabic) nafs (Ethiopian) river naaru (Akkadian) itrw asif hand yd, yad (common Semitic) Dr.t, ‘ (« arm ») ufus, afus house bayit (Hebrew) pr tigemmi head +ra’sh (common Semitic) tp, apE, afE agayyu, ixf reeshu (Akkadian) roosh (Hebrew) ra’s (Arabic)
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I have no linguistic training whatsoever, so I am in a poor position to evaluate those excerpts from Obenga's book. However, as far as I can tell he makes a lot of valid points about the dubious relationship between Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic. Good work, Tukuler. I wonder if there's a more complete English translation out there?
The earliest written evidence of an Afroasiatic language is an Ancient Egyptian inscription of c. 3400 BC (5,400 years ago).[11] Symbols on Gerzean pottery resembling Egyptian hieroglyphs date back to c. 4000 BC, suggesting a still earlier possible date. This gives us a minimum date for the age of Afroasiatic. However, Ancient Egyptian is highly divergent from Proto-Afroasiatic (Trombetti 1905: 1–2), and considerable time must have elapsed in between them. Estimates of the date at which the Proto-Afroasiatic language was spoken vary widely. They fall within a range between approximately 7500 BC (9,500 years ago) and approximately 16,000 BC (18,000 years ago). According to Igor M. Diakonoff (1988: 33n), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 10,000 BC. According to Christopher Ehret (2002: 35–36), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 11,000 BC at the latest and possibly as early as c. 16,000 BC. These dates are older than dates associated with most other proto-languages.
posted
Here's another link (using imageshack) to the Negro-Egyptian family tree since the new photobucket site makes it difficult to see the original file (at times, apparently) in its full size.
Une étude de linguistique historique et comparative sur les rapports entre l'égyptien pharaonique et plusieurs langues africaines. L'étude est précédée d'un exposé sur les principes méthodologiques de la linguistique historique. L'ouvrage est illustré de cartes, de photos d'objets ainsi que de nombreux dessins d'hiéroglyphes.
My translation:
quote:
A study of historical and comparative linguistics on the relationship between Pharaonic Egyptian and several African languages. The study was preceded by an exposé on the methodological principles of historical linguistics. The book is illustrated with maps, photos of objects as well as numerous drawings of hieroglyphics.
posted
Great topic. To summarize, it looks like the truth about the Afroasian language is now being told. All the lies by previous linguist is now being exposed.
Ehret cracked the door and Obenga blew it wide open
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic