quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I've compared languages before. The rate is high and this was after eliminating the words people found.
The literature is filled with examples of people who think they've discovered the 'true affinities' of a language. They even have a name for it: pseudolinguistics. It's quality of evidence that matters, not quantity.
^See how Diop's seemingly long list of impressive evidence evaporates, when a professional linguist looks at his work. Like I said, you can make false constructs in science if you just look hard enough at isolated patterns in the data. You need the full picture to understand what the data says in any scientific discipline. It's not a coincidence that Negro-Egyptian supporters all lack a full picture in terms of archaeology, genetics and even linguistics. You can also flip this observation around: it's not a coincidence that people who understand these disciplines see no room for anything Negro-Egyptian related.
As the author notes, Wolof and Egyptian are, in fact, related. The relationship is just super remote, and this becomes very obvious when he shows that the any closeness between Egyptian and Wolof is dwarfed by the closeness between Egyptian and Hausa. That type of analysis is like kryptonite to Negro-Egyptian supporters. They don't really want to prove Negro-Egyptian stacks up when you test whether Egyptian is closer to Bantu as a whole, or to any Afroasiatic family, as a whole.
And that also says a bunch. One of the clearest signs of circular reasoning is when supporters of an idea refuse to allow their idea to be falsified. They will only allow the discussion to take place on their ideological turf, where all the pseudo evidence is at hand. Just like the bible thumper uses contested scriptures to prove parts of the bible, the Negro-Egyptian supporter will use his own contested methods (which he wrongly calls "comparative linguistics") to argue he's right.
Who determines who is and who isn't a "professional linguist", and what qualifications does one need to obtain in order to be considered as such? Is Christophe Ehret's Ph.D in Linguistics, for example?
Posts: 117 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The literature is filled with examples of people who think they've discovered the 'true affinities' of a language. They even have a name for it: pseudolinguistics. It's quality of evidence that matters, not quantity.
^See how Diop's seemingly long list of impressive evidence evaporates, when a professional linguist looks at his work. Like I said, you can make false constructs in science if you just look hard enough at isolated patterns in the data. You need the full picture to understand what the data says in any scientific discipline. It's not a coincidence that Negro-Egyptian supporters all lack a full picture in terms of archaeology, genetics and even linguistics. You can also flip this observation around: it's not a coincidence that people who understand these disciplines see no room for anything Negro-Egyptian related.
As the author notes, Wolof and Egyptian are, in fact, related. The relationship is just super remote, and this becomes very obvious when he shows that the any closeness between Egyptian and Wolof is dwarfed by the closeness between Egyptian and Hausa. That type of analysis is like kryptonite to Negro-Egyptian supporters. They don't really want to prove Negro-Egyptian stacks up when you test whether Egyptian is closer to Bantu as a whole, or to any Afroasiatic family, as a whole.
And that also says a bunch. One of the clearest signs of circular reasoning is when supporters of an idea refuse to allow their idea to be falsified. They will only allow the discussion to take place on their ideological turf, where all the pseudo evidence is at hand. Just like the bible thumper uses contested scriptures to prove parts of the bible, the Negro-Egyptian supporter will use his own contested methods (which he wrongly calls "comparative linguistics") to argue he's right. [/QB]
Spanish: el bien se ha convertido en el mal Portuguese: o bem tornou-se mal ...but this evidence is invalid:
quote: The good has become evil
Ancient Egyptian: bw nafret zu em bw bon Wolof: bw rafet mel ni bw bon
I've been comparing Egyptian translits to the Google translate languages with the same dialect standard and so for Hausa does not stand out.
code:
Forty KMT Hm Xhosa Amane Amharic Ariba Arabic Arabain Igbo Iri Ano Hausa Arabain Somali Afaratan Sudanese Opath Pulu Zulu Amane Yoruba Ogogi Coptic Ame
Kemet Hamani?
Two Egypt snw Senu Arabic Athnan Amharic Huleti Coptic Senay Ciluba Bidi Hausa Biyu Ibo Abuo Somali Laba Sudanese Dua Xhosa Ibini Yaruba Meji Zulu Ezimbili Egypt Zinu
the key to confirming a genetic relationship is regular correspondence, and being able to reconstruct the proto language. Diop met this criterion.
The Schuh paper provides 14 alleged terms he claims came from Diop out of hundred. The should have alerted you to the fact that Schuh was out to decieve readers.
On page 25 Diop compares Egyptian and Wolof:
Egyptian............Wolof i.................. ni mi............. ma ni................. na k..................nga ef................. ef es................. es n..................nanw tn................. ngen sen................ naiw (sen)
This illustrates that Shuh is an untrust worthy writer. He wrote the paper you cite with a political intention in mind. A cursory review of the Schuh article before publication would have shown the paper to be unreliable.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: does not really dispute Diop's research
It does debunk Diop's notion of a close relationship between Wolof and Egyptian. It shows that Diop's grasp of linguistics was unimpressive, to put it mildly. Diop's comparisons fail to impress experts in the field. Not because the experts are lying, but because he demonstrably barely knew what he was talking about on the Wolof-Egyptian subject.
I highly doubt you've read the paper, because the author doesn't dispute that Wolof and Egyptian are related. Therefore, it makes no sense to try to vindicate Diop's claim of a close relationship by posting 'better examples' that Schuh supposedly overlooked.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I've been comparing Egyptian translits to the Google translate languages with the same dialect standard and so for Hausa does not stand out.
You're just posting more of the same without addressing what has already come up. For instance, it looks like you failed to take into account what Schuh talked about on page 69-72.
Also, in some of your comparisons, Bantu appears closer to Egyptian than Yoruba and Igbo are. Negro-Egyptian supporters say that proves a more direct link between Egyptian and Bantu, but someone else might say that betrays that Bantu has a large(r) non-NC component. The evidence you post, and that other Negro-Egyptian supporters love to post, never addresses that scenario (see my previous posts). Until Negro-Egyptian supporters make an effort to address that, it's all pseudo evidence that only meets the Negro-Egyptian goalpost, which is secretly always lower than where they publicly claim it is. That is, they claim the goalpost is proving a genetic relationship, but always stop short of proving it.
In terms of lexical similarity, Persian is closer to Arabic than it is to other Indo-European languages. No linguists would consider that evidence of a genetic relationship, because closer inspection reveals Persian descended from IE, not from Arabic. I see Negro-Egyptian as resting on the same pseudo evidence. The difference is, competent linguists are not deceived by such isolated patterns in the data, because their training in comparative and contact linguistics prepares them for that. Negro-Egyptian supporters, on the other hand, lack the competence and/or intellectual honesty to admit that finding commonalities is just a first step, where you still have to take things to their logical conclusion.
Posts: 8795 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is sad that some people accept anything written by European as the gospel. Diop, has explained his Wolof-Egyptians in two books: Nouvelles Recherches sur L'Egyptien Ancien et les Langues Negro-Africanes Modernes, and Parente Genetique de L'Egyptien Pharaonique et des Langues Negro-Africaines, in these books Diop never discuseed Persian and Bantu, he was mainly writing about Wolof-Egyptian. He presents 100's of cognate terms. He did discuss Babylonian but not Persian. As a result, Schuh is talking bs.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is sad that some people accept anything written by European as the gospel.
Not really. I go against mainstream bioanthropology all the time as my blogposts show. Where they can be proven to be correct, I accept the commonalities posted by Negro-Egyptian supporters. I just think you're reading those commonalities wrong. West/Central Africans and Bantu speakers are all over the haplotype networks of Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages that are anchored in (north)east Africa until they expand within the last 10ky:
To a large extent (I don't know how much) Negro-Egyptian supporters are just misinterpreting the linguistic echoes of (north)east African aqualithic fishermen and pastoralists settling in West/Central Africa. You would find the same thing in European hunter gatherers who interacted with European farmers, except their languages are mostly extinct. It's just common sense that food producers and people who bring new technologies will have that effect on neighbouring populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: in these books Diop never discuseed Persian and Bantu, he was mainly writing about Wolof-Egyptian.
I'm not saying that Diop discussed Persian. I just used Persian as an example to show that linguistic commonalities can have more explanations than just genetic relatedness.
Posts: 8795 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many linguistic relationships but a genetic linguistic relationship is based on cognate terms, analogous syntax features, grammar and regular correspondence. Diop illustrates all of these elements in his research.
Negro-Egyptian has a firm foundation. The problem for some people interested in Negro-Egyptians is that much of the work is in French and because most researchers today can only read English it limits their ability to read the literature.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're just posting more of the same without addressing what has already come up. For instance, it looks like you failed to take into account what Schuh talked about on page 69-72.
I'm not doing any structural comparisons. Just words to transliterations. It's ironic that we both used the word two. I also included 40. Hausa has the numbers lead .
quote: Also, in some of your comparisons, Bantu appears closer to Egyptian than Yoruba and Igbo are. Negro-Egyptian supporters say that proves a more direct link between Egyptian and Bantu, but someone else might say that betrays that Bantu has a large(r) non-NC component. The evidence you post, and that other Negro-Egyptian supporters love to post, never addresses that scenario (see my previous posts). Until Negro-Egyptian supporters make an effort to address that, it's all pseudo evidence that only meets the Negro-Egyptian goalpost, which is secretly always lower than where they publicly claim it is. That is, they claim the goalpost is proving a genetic relationship, but always stop short of proving it.
It depends on the Bantu language. Then you have the Simi-Bantu languages. I really need to include Bamilieke.
I might read read Mboli's book next. Year. I know how to get it in English but remember Mboli and Obenga's Negro Egyptian are different.
quote: In terms of lexical similarity, Persian is closer to Arabic than it is to other Indo-European languages. No linguists would consider that evidence of a genetic relationship, because closer inspection reveals Persian descended from IE, not from Arabic. I see Negro-Egyptian as resting on the same pseudo evidence. The difference is, competent linguists are not deceived by such isolated patterns in the data, because their training in comparative and contact linguistics prepares them for that. Negro-Egyptian supporters, on the other hand, lack the competence and/or intellectual honesty to admit that finding commonalities is just a first step, where you still have to take things to their logical conclusion.
You are reaching. Negro Egyptian was created by competent linguists with more than commonalities. A lot of the comparisons include culture where Greenberg's didn't. I should say Negro Egyptians because they are different.
Posts: 1257 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: You are reaching. Negro Egyptian was created by competent linguists with more than commonalities. A lot of the comparisons include culture where Greenberg's didn't. I should say Negro Egyptians because they are different.
I'm not saying there is one Negro-Egyptian. There is no consensus Negro-Egyptian construct, just like there is no consensus Afroasiatic construct. But you can talk broadly about Negro-Egyptian, just like you can talk broadly about Afroasiatic.
Posts: 8795 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There are many linguistic relationships but a genetic linguistic relationship is based on cognate terms, analogous syntax features, grammar and regular correspondence. Diop illustrates all of these elements in his research.
Negro-Egyptian has a firm foundation. The problem for some people interested in Negro-Egyptians is that much of the work is in French and because most researchers today can only read English it limits their ability to read the literature.
What Negro-Egyptian supporters do with Egyptian, is no different from what Eurocentrics have done with Egyptian in the past. Eurocentrics have used confirmation bias to spin their own narrative, claiming Egyptian is an early offshoot of Semitic:
quote:Benfey tried to prove that the Egyptian language had sprung from a Semitic stock, and de Rouge and Brusch accepted his arguments. Barthelemy, de Guignes, Giorgi, de Rossi and Kopp proclaimed unhesitatingly the identity of Coptic with Hebrew, but Quatremere thought that Coptic was another tongue and had affinity with no other language. Lepsius attempted to prove that the Indo-European, Semitic and Coptic families of languages were originally identical, and Swartze asserted that Coptic was analogous to the Semitic languages in its grammar, and to the Indo-European languages by its roots, but that it was more akin to the Semitic languages in its simple character and lack of logical structure. Bunsen and Paul de Lagarde thought that the Egyptian language represented a prehistoric layer of Semitism, and tried to show that the forms and the roots of the ancient Egyptian could be explained neither by Aryan nor Semitic singly, but by both of these families together, and that they formed in some way the transition from one to the other. Stern believed that there was at one time a relationship between Egyptian and Semitic, which was proved by the pronouns and other words, but that a separation took place between Egyptian and its Asiatic relations at a very early period, and it followed its own course. Prof. W. Wright held that “we have not a few structural affinities, which may perhaps be thought sufficient to justify those linguists who hold that Egyptian is a relic of the earliest age of Semitism, or of Semitic speech as it was before it passed into the peculiar form in which we may be said to know it historically”.
This is just linguistic sleight of hand. And Negro-Egyptian is based on the same pseudo evidence. You're all rope-tugging on different aspects of Egyptian. Eurocentrics tug on the part that overlaps with languages spoken in Eurasia (Semitic, Nostratic), while Negro-Egyptian supporters tug on the part that overlaps with languages spoken in Africa. Both sides claim that the affinities they've identified, define the Egyptian language, and that the component claimed by the other side is foreign. For instance, here is a Eurocentric doing the same thing with Cushitic languages, which he claimed are Semitic, but with foreign African influences:
quote:According to Sasse ( 1981a: 132), some of the languages now classified as Cushitic, such as Beja, Somali, Galla, and Harari, were considered, as of the mid nineteenth century, to belong to the same family as Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber. Sasse cites Lepsius (1844), Beke (1845), d’Abbadie (1845), and Lottner (1860–1) as among those who speculated about the existence of the larger linguistic family. We may add to this list Burton (1856), who stated that ‘the Harari appears, like the Galla, the Dankali, and the Somali, its sisters, to be a Semitic graft inserted into an indigenous stock’ (Burton 1987 (1856): 153).
I have a lingering suspicion that this is also why Negro-Egyptian supporters insist on denying Semitic is fundamentally African. The very existence of Semitic throws a wrench in their scheme. If they don't reject Semitic, they have to contend with the part of Egyptian that is related to Semitic, but not to NC and NS. Needless to say, outliers like Semitic and Berber, which can't be crammed into the Negro-Egyptian construct because their Afroasiatic affinties can't be obscured, complicate the narrative of a close Negro-Egyptian macrofamily. The solution? Disown and ignore Berber and Semitic so that you don't have to deal with their obvious affinities with Egyptian, to the exclusion of NC and NS.
Posts: 8795 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Negro Egyptian theorist do not deny that Semitic is an African language. Diop made it clear that an African root is the base of Semitic words, as a result, Semitic does not throw a wrench in the reality of Negro-Egyptian
Berber on the otherhand is recognized as a descendant of Germanic languages.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Negro Egyptian theorist do not deny that Semitic is an African language. Diop made it clear that an African root is the base of Semitic words, as a result, Semitic does not throw a wrench in the reality of Negro-Egyptian.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like the rope-tugging I mentioned above. I bet that "African root" is just whatever has affinity with Negro-Egyptian. In other words, Semitic isn't allowed to have its own African identity apart from overlap with Negro-Egyptian.
Can you provide quotes showing that representatives of the Negro-Egyptian school of thought see the parts of Semitic that differ from Negro-Egyptian, as African? I don't think think so, because that would imply Semitic, Egyptian and other AA languages do not fit comfortably within Negro-Egyptian. Because AA languages all have this component that is completely unrelated to NS and NC.
Posts: 8795 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. If Semitic has an African root, It simply means that the Semitic languages are African languages. The theory of Negro-Egyptian is that all African languages are related , this finding is congruent with the theory.
We reject the idea of Afro-Asiatic because there is no Asian language in the family. The Semitic languages originated in Africa and up to the Islamic expansion the majority of Semitic speakers lived in Africa, not Asia. So the concept of Afro-Asiatic is oxymoronic,
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that book page you posted, Diop is establishing African roots in Arabic based on Negro-Egyptian. Why is that not the same circular approach as Burton, who tried to establish Eurasian affinities in Cushitic languages based on Semitic, or as Asar, who said Semitic is an Indian language, except for some Negro-Egyptian affinities?
quote:We may add to this list Burton (1856), who stated that ‘the Harari appears, like the Galla, the Dankali, and the Somali, its sisters, to be a Semitic graft inserted into an indigenous stock
Let's see those quotes, Clyde. Where are Negro-Egyptian supporters who can account for the African part of Semitic, that doesn't overlap with Negro-Egyptian. And let's restate why that's important. The reason why that's important, is because it's a chance for Negro-Egyptian supporters to prove that you're not just cramming languages into Negro-Egyptian based on overlap with Negro-Egyptian, and by ignoring the African component in these languages that has no overlap with NS and NC.
Posts: 8795 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi guys, I know it's been a while (again personal issues I had to attend to) I should try to find a way to schedule personal blogging time.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: I'll never get the knee-jerk negative reaction that so many people in the so-called "Afrocentric" community have with the Greenberg model of African linguistics anyway. Afrasan as a linguistic phylum most probably originated in Africa anyway, so it's not like the classification of ancient Egyptian as Afrasan necessarily de-Africanizes it. Hell, the only reason there even is an "Asiatic" in "Afroasiatic" is because of ancient migrations into the Middle East from Africa. Shouldn't "Afrocentrics" embrace that fact?
Actually I totally understand this knee-jerk reaction among some Afrocentrics. It's called insecurity! The problem is these Afrocentrics are either ignorant on the issues or they don't know how to properly interpret or assess the data they read and so try to put a spin on it. These Afrocentrics desperate for African commonality apparently unaware of evidence supporting it, then go on a tactic to undermine diversity and homogenize Africa in a way that they think will bring commonality. Again, this despite the fact that skeletal material and especially archaeological data show common connections between North Africa and Sub-Sahara. But apparently these connections aren't good enough in their minds, they have a desire to make ancient Egyptians and Bantus to be almost identical!
What's funny is that East Asian populations and cultures have the opposite problem. Whereas Westerners have successfully divided Africa into North and Sub-Sahara both 'racially' and culturally, East Asia was largley homogenized and monolithized on both aspects even though morphologically northeast Asians differ from Southeast Asians.
quote:I will admit that, years back, I flirted with the idea of Afrasan, Niger-Congo, and Nilo-Saharan as having common ancestry sometime in the late Pleistocene (i.e. after OOA but before the LGM). But the only data I had to back this up was the number of linguistic parallels that Diop etc. claimed to have found between Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages like Wolof. With everything I know now, I don't think any hypothetical macro-phylum encompassing Afrasan, Niger-Congo, and Nilo-Saharan would be tenable anymore.
Actually many linguists agree that Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan do share common ancestry due to phonetic and grammatical features. In fact a very old and divergent branch of Niger-Congo known as Kordofanian shares many similarities with older divergent froms of Nilo-Saharan. Afrisian or Afro-Erythrean is entirely different with its pharyngeal and gutteral consonants. Christopher Ehret and other linguists actually think the greatest linguistic seperation was between click-speakers and non-click speakers with the modern day Khoisan phylum being a remnant of a much larger macro group of click-speakers before OOA.
In terms of certain affinities between Wolof and Egyptian as demonstrated by the late Diop. As I've said before, the same type of demonstrations can be made between other languages that are not genetically related. For example, Japanese and Malay. You guys probably aren't aware of old debunk theories that Japanese or Japonic languages are somehow genetically related to Austronesian due to common words and phrases or grammar of certain phrases, obviously this isn't so.
Posts: 26423 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: LOL. If Semitic has an African root, It simply means that the Semitic languages are African languages. The theory of Negro-Egyptian is that all African languages are related , this finding is congruent with the theory.
We reject the idea of Afro-Asiatic because there is no Asian language in the family. The Semitic languages originated in Africa and up to the Islamic expansion the majority of Semitic speakers lived in Africa, not Asia. So the concept of Afro-Asiatic is oxymoronic,
If Arabic and Hebrew are not Negro-Egyptian then what is their origin?
Posts: 43045 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: LOL. If Semitic has an African root, It simply means that the Semitic languages are African languages. The theory of Negro-Egyptian is that all African languages are related , this finding is congruent with the theory.
We reject the idea of Afro-Asiatic because there is no Asian language in the family. The Semitic languages originated in Africa and up to the Islamic expansion the majority of Semitic speakers lived in Africa, not Asia. So the concept of Afro-Asiatic is oxymoronic,
If Arabic and Hebrew are not Negro-Egyptian then what is their origin?
Arabic and Hebrew have been ninfluenced by Indo-European languages.
For example, one of the most outstanding features of African Semitic languages, is the presence of a vowel following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k'ettl 'he kills'. In Southwest Semitic: Hebrew and Arabic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u . Here we have the same hypothetical q-t-l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root. This results from the fact that in Black African languages we rarely, if at all find words formed with double consonants.
The fact that African Semitic languages has shared archaicism with Akkadian shows that at the time the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack of this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the Indo-European speakers who invaded Palestine and Arabia between 1300 B.C. and 900 B.C. Semitic verb root Akkadian Ethiopic/S. Arabian kl 'to be dark' ekelu Soqotri okil 'to cover' mr 'to see' amaru Geez ammara;Tigre amara
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
So the only sound we have for beast as in animal beast/monster is HIW and look at all the Is or Es and Ws with a few Hs.
Xhosa, Ciluba and Swahili have the same word for beast like they have the same word for snake and like snake its in ME. But unlike snake its also in Coptic.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic