posted
I saw this the other day about Nsw.t Bjt.j. The way Asar boast about his skills you would think his book would be infallible. But this video breaks down methodological errors in the book.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It's a very good video.
Did you even watch the video?
It gets so much stuff wrong that you know is wrong.
Not really he especially shows how Asar's emphasis on the work of Mboli is one of the main problems in his research. Moreover, I explained years ago that Asar does not understand comparative and historical linguistics
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khepera9evolution: @Fourty2Tribes name some points that were wrong
The entire premise is grounded in the Greenberg families which have never been reconstructed. The false premise that Negro-Egyptian is a family that was birthed from Egyptian which is not what Mboli was saying. Not dealing with the diversity in sources with the relation to the theoretical Niger-Congo family languages Indo-European and Samaraian. Questioning and/or debunking less than 10 out of hundreds if not thousands of demonstrations. I can see from 8 African languages and google translate that Egyptian transliterations are no more related to the theoretical Afro-Asiatic branch than the other branches (at least not majorly so) which would suggest that we are dealing with one large family instead of families that were created based on segregating Egypt from greater Africa. Using dates and locations as paper tigers arguments. Joshua compares the current location of wester Europe to Central Africa when Europeans themselves said they only reached that location recently. The Coptic thing is wrong too. Coptic in not intelligible from ME so its not a dialect its another language as would be expected. Calling Coptic foreign when Asar and Mboli still agree that its an Egyptian language with some foreign influence. Manetho and Mboli are not the only sources for Upper and Lower Egyptian being different languages. The whole 'black Egypt' thing with SOY Keita was just dumb. Its also hypocritical to keep making the point that Asar's sources disagree with him in other areas.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greenberg has not been disproven to date which is why its still is standing today.. find me a scholar who has dismantled Greenbergs model academically where all scholars agree with Greenberg being wrong. the worst part about the video is that it uses Nsw.t Bjt.j's own sources against it...
And also if you look at Nsw.t Bjt.j it emphatically says that Coptic is a different language and is not genetically part of Egyptian... it also says that it was spoken at the same time as Old, Middle, Late Egyptian which is not historically accurate at all. His own sources say that its a continuation of the Egyptian language while he says its a totally different language.
And if you look at Egyptian within Afro-Asiatic there are genetic cognates within Semitic, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic etc. within Afro-Asiatic because they were geographically in that area or descended from there...
Niger-Congo Cognates are distant based on the number of cognates found... if you have a verifiable word-list of cognates within Egyptian only and Niger-Congo please present it.
DId you read the book?
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic problem with Asar's work is that following Mboli, he assumes that Coptic is not related to ancient Egyptian. This makes his whole theory groundless. it is groundless because ancient Egyptian was deciphered and is read using Coptic, so the two languages are related.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the end of the day, the only test of linguistic classifications, is whether their predictions stand up to genetic and other evidence. Outside of linguistics, no evidence supports Negro-Egyptian.
Negro-Egyptian is a construct. You can make false constructs in science (e.g. Multiregionalism, Out-of-Arabia, racial typology) if you just stare hard enough at isolated patterns in the data and use circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when you refuse to let your theory to be tested by outside evidence:
^Notice the closed loop: no outside information is brought in to bear on the issue. The bible is used here, to prove contested parts of the bible. That's no different from a suspect who says: I didn't commit a crime, so I have an alibi, because I said so. In the same way, Negro-Egyptian supporters can only point to the isolated patterns they've found in languages, to support what they're saying.
I've asked many Negro-Egyptian supporters to bring in evidence from other fields, that independently, and systematically, supports what they're saying. They can't. And I know they can't: it's a trick question meant to draw out the weakness in their language family. As soon as they leave the comfort zone of their interpretation of linguistics (which I question also), they're confronted with hard realities in archaeology and genetics, like:
quote:Examination of African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana. In sites dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.” They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs.
This distribution of barbed bone points, with a huge time gap in between appearance in SSA and appearance in North Africa (and even then, with morphological differences between SSA and coastal North African examples), would never happen if African populations differentiated as predicted by Negro-Egyptian. Genetics and archaeology are filled with such discontinuities. The African archaeological record shows only old regional assemblages developing in their respective regions, not a continental culture spread recently by Negro-Egyptian speakers from a single homeland.
Negro-Egyptian cannot be reconciled with evidence from any other scientific fields, proving it's a construct that cannot survive outside of the narrow linguistic interpretations of its exponents.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The basic problem with Asar's work is that following Mboli, he assumes that Coptic is not related to ancient Egyptian. This makes his whole theory groundless. it is groundless because ancient Egyptian was deciphered and is read using Coptic, so the two languages are related.
I could be wrong but it sounds to me that both Asar and Mboli consider Coptic to be an ancient Egyptian language just different than ME which you should know too. Anyone can look at ME and Coptic and see that they are different languages.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khepera9evolution: Greenberg has not been disproven to date which is why its still is standing today.. find me a scholar who has dismantled Greenbergs model academically where all scholars agree with Greenberg being wrong. the worst part about the video is that it uses Nsw.t Bjt.j's own sources against it...
There is nothing to dismantle. It was never mantled in the first place. There are plenty scholars that would tell you the same. Have you ever seen proto languages for any of the Greenberg families? I looked and found nothing.
You can test it yourself. Take Egyptian transliterations for 100 old words and compare them to words in the Greenberg families and you will see that Ancient Egytptian words are scattered all over the Greenberg families. It doesn't beacon in Afro-Asiatic while Coptic barely leads.
Example
40 KMT Hm Xhosa Amane Amharic Ariba Arabic Arabain Igbo Iri Ano Hausa Arabain Somali Afaratan Sudanese Opath Pulu Zulu Amane Yoruba Ogogi Coptic Ame
quote: And also if you look at Nsw.t Bjt.j it emphatically says that Coptic is a different language and is not genetically part of Egyptian... it also says that it was spoken at the same time as Old, Middle, Late Egyptian which is not historically accurate at all.
Both Asar and Mboli state that Coptic is an Egyptian language that is related to ME. They are simply saying that its a different language which is true. Anyone can compare transliterations to Coptic and see this. You have a lot of cognate words buts its not intelligible which is what separates a dialect from a language. A person who spoke ME would not recognize enough of ME in Coptic to not have to learn a new language. I haven't studied enough of Mboli to make a case about them being spoken at the same time but it does make sense that people of Upper Egypt would speak a different language than people of Lower. I have no problem with that. Maybe Coptic is new Lower Egyptian with foreign stuff.
quote: His own sources say that its a continuation of the Egyptian language while he says its a totally different language.
Because the are not privy to new evidence or free enough thinkers.
quote: And if you look at Egyptian within Afro-Asiatic there are genetic cognates within Semitic, Berber, Cushitic, Omotic etc. within Afro-Asiatic because they were geographically in that area or descended from there
Niger-Congo Cognates are distant based on the number of cognates found... if you have a verifiable word-list of cognates within Egyptian only and Niger-Congo please present it.
DId you read the book?
Yes I read that book, another of his and a lot of his online stuff. Most of his demonstrations check out. This
code:
The ancient Egyptians, and other African nations, associated their gods with the purity and the life causing essence of water. Egyptian ntr “natron” (cleansing agent) ntr “God” (unseen fructifying agent) (Coptic noute) Twi ntoro “spirit of patrilineage” Yorùbá ntori “because” Lugbara adro “guardian spirit” Adro “God” (also the whirlwind found in rivers)1 Mbuti Ndura “God” (<of the rainforest) ciLuba Ndele “divine, begetter, Ancestor” Gurma Unteru “God” Gurmantche Untenu “God” Fulani Ntori “God” Masai Naiteru “God” Kwasio Nture “sacred” Mombutu Noro “God” Ewe Tre “clan spirit, fetish” Ijo Toru “river” (Egyptian i-trw “river”)2 Tonga Tilo “blue sky, God” (from which the rains fall) Amarigna3 AnäTära “pure” Wolof Twr “protecting god, totem” Twr “libation” (Egyptian twr “libation”)
... also checks out. Notice Ntr Neb still goes by the Greenberg language family. To me it seems like its more of a placeholder or outline. He demonstrates that based on Egyptian transliterations a large language family makes sense. How many cognates do you wan't. The words serpent and god alone give you 5-10 with the few languages that are available online. I thought the work had already been done by Obenga years ago.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] At the end of the day, the only test of linguistic classifications, is whether their predictions stand up to genetic and other evidence. Outside of linguistics, no evidence supports Negro-Egyptian.
Negro-Egyptian is a construct. You can make false constructs in science (e.g. Multiregionalism, Out-of-Arabia, racial typology) if you just stare hard enough at isolated patterns in the data and use circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when you refuse to let your theory to be tested by outside evidence:
That's not circular reasoning. Circular reason is when the assumption is flawed at its core not when you aren't considering peripheral influences like genetics and archaeology on linguistic correspondences. Claiming that genetics and archaeology disprove a linguistic reconstruction is an example of circular reasoning.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The basic problem with Asar's work is that following Mboli, he assumes that Coptic is not related to ancient Egyptian. This makes his whole theory groundless. it is groundless because ancient Egyptian was deciphered and is read using Coptic, so the two languages are related.
I could be wrong but it sounds to me that both Asar and Mboli consider Coptic to be an ancient Egyptian language just different than ME which you should know too. Anyone can look at ME and Coptic and see that they are different languages.
Pg. 46 It is observations like this that help in the assumption of a continuity between the languages of M-E and Coptic, when in fact, as we argue, it is the result of existing relatively peacefully in a confluence zone which facilitated the synthesizing of culture and shared linguistic features: enough to make researchers think that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian.
Pg 63 What probably happened is that after the end of the Middle-Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period, the indigenous population gained their independence and the N-K>Coptic Languages became languages of administration and writing. The Coptic language may actually be a dialect of N-K that was adapted by a foreign population that settled in Km.t. When we look at the appearance of the Copts today, they do not at all resemble that of the artwork of the rmt.w from earlier periods.
And
It is my contention that the adoption of the Greek signs is because the Copts, partly, originated with and/or identified with people from the regions of the Aegean and Mesopotamia and vowels were critical to the understanding of the speech for which the original syllabary of ciKam would not have been adequate.
And secondly there is no reason to even argue that Coptic and Middle Egyptian are the SAME because no one says they ARE THE SAME... They say that Coptic is a continuation of Egyptian language... Asar Imhotep totally disagrees with that and tries to say that Coptic is the result of foreigners speaking with Middle and Late Egyptian hence borrowing which he says "Makes researchers THINK that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian"...
That point is preposterous on the fact that these languages were spoken at vastly different time periods... its just like saying Proto Germanic, Old English, Modern Eglish, Afrikaans, and Old Saxon were all spoken at the EXACT SAME TIME... if that makes sense to you then i can see why you like this book
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] At the end of the day, the only test of linguistic classifications, is whether their predictions stand up to genetic and other evidence. Outside of linguistics, no evidence supports Negro-Egyptian.
Negro-Egyptian is a construct. You can make false constructs in science (e.g. Multiregionalism, Out-of-Arabia, racial typology) if you just stare hard enough at isolated patterns in the data and use circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when you refuse to let your theory to be tested by outside evidence:
That's not circular reasoning. Circular reason is when the assumption is flawed at its core not when you aren't considering peripheral influences like genetics and archaeology on linguistic correspondences. Claiming that genetics and archaeology disprove a linguistic reconstruction is an example of circular reasoning.
It is circular reasoning because they made up a language group and use the made up language group to prove the made up language group... No other sciences are used to test the model.. thats why they mitigate the importance of using other sciences
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khepera9evolution: Greenberg has not been disproven to date which is why its still is standing today.. find me a scholar who has dismantled Greenbergs model academically where all scholars agree with Greenberg being wrong. the worst part about the video is that it uses Nsw.t Bjt.j's own sources against it...
There is nothing to dismantle. It was never mantled in the first place. There are plenty scholars that would tell you the same. Have you ever seen proto languages for any of the Greenberg families? I looked and found nothing.
You can test it yourself. Take Egyptian transliterations for 100 old words and compare them to words in the Greenberg families and you will see that Ancient Egytptian words are scattered all over the Greenberg families. It doesn't beacon in Afro-Asiatic while Coptic barely leads.
Example
40 KMT Hm Xhosa Amane Amharic Ariba Arabic Arabain Igbo Iri Ano Hausa Arabain Somali Afaratan Sudanese Opath Pulu Zulu Amane Yoruba Ogogi Coptic Ame
What is the Consensus on Greenbergs model? the consensus overwhelmingly agrees with the model... THe model has been under scrutiny since the 70's and it still stands AMONG EXPERTS... Name ONE EXPERT that agrees with Asar and Mboli... I said EXPERT not some fringe amateur that does this as a hobby
The best part about being Asar and Mboli is that no EXPERT knows they exist... they'd rather stay around people who don't know any better and make it appear as if they know what they are talking about...
And another thing this video showed is that they can't prove that these people interacted with each other. Why? because there is nothing to support it except LOOK ALIKE linguistics... If they are so sure on their model and claim its scientific, then why are they pushing their work on the likes of us and not academia? lol
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
What i love most about these pseudo linguistic reconstructions is that they won't take it to mainstream and debate an expert and they don't use anything else besides their made up language to prove their made up language.
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The basic problem with Asar's work is that following Mboli, he assumes that Coptic is not related to ancient Egyptian. This makes his whole theory groundless. it is groundless because ancient Egyptian was deciphered and is read using Coptic, so the two languages are related.
I could be wrong but it sounds to me that both Asar and Mboli consider Coptic to be an ancient Egyptian language just different than ME which you should know too. Anyone can look at ME and Coptic and see that they are different languages.
Pg. 46 It is observations like this that help in the assumption of a continuity between the languages of M-E and Coptic, when in fact, as we argue, it is the result of existing relatively peacefully in a confluence zone which facilitated the synthesizing of culture and shared linguistic features: enough to make researchers think that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian.
Pg 63 What probably happened is that after the end of the Middle-Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period, the indigenous population gained their independence and the N-K>Coptic Languages became languages of administration and writing. The Coptic language may actually be a dialect of N-K that was adapted by a foreign population that settled in Km.t. When we look at the appearance of the Copts today, they do not at all resemble that of the artwork of the rmt.w from earlier periods.
And
It is my contention that the adoption of the Greek signs is because the Copts, partly, originated with and/or identified with people from the regions of the Aegean and Mesopotamia and vowels were critical to the understanding of the speech for which the original syllabary of ciKam would not have been adequate.
And secondly there is no reason to even argue that Coptic and Middle Egyptian are the SAME because no one says they ARE THE SAME... They say that Coptic is a continuation of Egyptian language... Asar Imhotep totally disagrees with that and tries to say that Coptic is the result of foreigners speaking with Middle and Late Egyptian hence borrowing which he says "Makes researchers THINK that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian"...
That point is preposterous on the fact that these languages were spoken at vastly different time periods... its just like saying Proto Germanic, Old English, Modern Eglish, Afrikaans, and Old Saxon were all spoken at the EXACT SAME TIME... if that makes sense to you then i can see why you like this book
Greek was used as a lingua franca in Africa after the Romans took control of Egypt as a result, many African groups including the Beja, Noba, and Copts wrote texts in Greek. We also have Axumite Greek inscriptions.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, what plays a big part in their circular reasoning, is that Negro-Egyptian is held together by some assumptions and claims, which Negro-Egyptian exponents tend overlook. For instance, the linguistic commonalities don't necessarily justify their conclusion that there must have been a Negro-Egyptian language family. We know that pastoralists from northeast Africa (e.g. Tenereans) were close to the Proto-Bantu homeland during the formation of Proto-Bantu (hence, the presence of R1b-V88 in Cameroon). These people came from the Middle Nile area and made an impact on the region, so merely listing linguistic commonalities seems arbitrary.
As someone who studies archaeological cultures and relationships, I know it's a recurrent theme that you cannot tell direction from commonalities. In other words, you can't take a bunch of commonalities and draw up a convenient narrative about the direction of influence. You have to take different scenarios and show that your explanation best explains the evidence. Negro-Egyptian supporters conveniently skip over that phase and pretend they're doing science. It's embarrassing how low standards they seem to have for what passes as valid evidence. They will even say that they're doing textbook linguistics, and that Greenberg and others are the ones who are going on a limb. If so, then why are Negro-Egyptian speakers invisible archaeologically and genetically? Where are the Negro-Egyptian haplogroups, genes, subsistence strategies, lithics, etc.?
So, you have it all worked out that Berber and Semitic are definitely not related to Egyptian, but you can't even tell me where the 'true negro-Egyptian ancestors' of Egyptians are, in the archaeological record? We just have to take their word for it that Negro-Egyptian speakers existed ~10ky ago, just because they have a list of linguistic commonalities that is open to more than one interpretation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The basic problem with Asar's work is that following Mboli, he assumes that Coptic is not related to ancient Egyptian. This makes his whole theory groundless. it is groundless because ancient Egyptian was deciphered and is read using Coptic, so the two languages are related.
I could be wrong but it sounds to me that both Asar and Mboli consider Coptic to be an ancient Egyptian language just different than ME which you should know too. Anyone can look at ME and Coptic and see that they are different languages.
Pg. 46 It is observations like this that help in the assumption of a continuity between the languages of M-E and Coptic, when in fact, as we argue, it is the result of existing relatively peacefully in a confluence zone which facilitated the synthesizing of culture and shared linguistic features: enough to make researchers think that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian.
Pg 63 What probably happened is that after the end of the Middle-Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period, the indigenous population gained their independence and the N-K>Coptic Languages became languages of administration and writing. The Coptic language may actually be a dialect of N-K that was adapted by a foreign population that settled in Km.t. When we look at the appearance of the Copts today, they do not at all resemble that of the artwork of the rmt.w from earlier periods.
And
It is my contention that the adoption of the Greek signs is because the Copts, partly, originated with and/or identified with people from the regions of the Aegean and Mesopotamia and vowels were critical to the understanding of the speech for which the original syllabary of ciKam would not have been adequate.
And secondly there is no reason to even argue that Coptic and Middle Egyptian are the SAME because no one says they ARE THE SAME... They say that Coptic is a continuation of Egyptian language... Asar Imhotep totally disagrees with that and tries to say that Coptic is the result of foreigners speaking with Middle and Late Egyptian hence borrowing which he says "Makes researchers THINK that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian"...
That point is preposterous on the fact that these languages were spoken at vastly different time periods... its just like saying Proto Germanic, Old English, Modern Eglish, Afrikaans, and Old Saxon were all spoken at the EXACT SAME TIME... if that makes sense to you then i can see why you like this book
You are making a mistake when you attempt to look at language change based on the experiences of European language speakers . The rate at which languages change is variable. It appears that linguistic change is culture specific. Consequently, the social organization and political culture of a particular speech community can influence the speed at which languages change.
Based on the history of language change in Europe most linguists believe that the rate of change for all languages is both rapid and constant.(Diagne, 1981,p.238) The idea that all languages change rapidly is not valid for all the World's languages.
African languages change much slower than European languages. (Armstrong, 1962) For example, African vocabulary items collected by Arab explorers over a thousand years ago are analogous to contemporary lexical items.(Diagne,1981, p.239)
In addition there are striking resemblances between the ancient Egyptian language and Coptic, and Pharonic Egyptian and African languages.(Diagne, 1981; Diop, 1977; Obenga, 1993).
The slow rate of change among African languages explains why Champollion was able to read Egyptian using Copic, and Col. Rawlinson read Sumerian using the Galla/Oromo language.
quote:Originally posted by Khepera9evolution: Pg. 46 It is observations like this that help in the assumption of a continuity between the languages of M-E and Coptic, when in fact, as we argue, it is the result of existing relatively peacefully in a confluence zone which facilitated the synthesizing of culture and shared linguistic features: enough to make researchers think that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian.
Pg 63 What probably happened is that after the end of the Middle-Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period, the indigenous population gained their independence and the N-K>Coptic Languages became languages of administration and writing. The Coptic language may actually be a dialect of N-K that was adapted by a foreign population that settled in Km.t. When we look at the appearance of the Copts today, they do not at all resemble that of the artwork of the rmt.w from earlier periods.
And
It is my contention that the adoption of the Greek signs is because the Copts, partly, originated with and/or identified with people from the regions of the Aegean and Mesopotamia and vowels were critical to the understanding of the speech for which the original syllabary of ciKam would not have been adequate.
And secondly there is no reason to even argue that Coptic and Middle Egyptian are the SAME because no one says they ARE THE SAME... They say that Coptic is a continuation of Egyptian language... Asar Imhotep totally disagrees with that and tries to say that Coptic is the result of foreigners speaking with Middle and Late Egyptian hence borrowing which he says "Makes researchers THINK that Coptic is the last stage of Egyptian"...
That point is preposterous on the fact that these languages were spoken at vastly different time periods... its just like saying Proto Germanic, Old English, Modern Eglish, Afrikaans, and Old Saxon were all spoken at the EXACT SAME TIME... if that makes sense to you then i can see why you like this book [/QB]
I’m a little confused. Everything stated about Coptic is common sense or easily verifiable. The prayers read in the Coptic Church are of a different language than what was spoken in the MK. The video constantly appealed to authority over just that, stating that Asar was making some radicle statement about Coptic not being an indigenous ancient Egyptian language. That was one of my issues with the video. Egyptology is so backassward that you still have a bunch of people who see Coptic as an evolution from ‘the’ Egyptian language instead of an evolution from an Egyptian language. That is the only thing that may be somewhat advent garde in Asar and Mboli’s assessment. They are saying that Upper and Lower Egyptian were different languages.
Egyptology is dogmatically stupid. It’s founded on lies agreed upon and mythconceptions. They debate for a century on the race of ancient Egyptians while there are pictures of them on the walls, and sculptures in the ground. Then you have the fake Nubian people that they just agree to agree on. Egyptology is a stupid field of science so making appeals to consensus and authority is logical fallacy in the context of the video.
I think you are missing the point when you say it’s preposterous because the languages were spoken at different times. The point is that before the Coptic Church and the Greeks moving their capital to the Delta the people in the Delta spoke a language that would, through confluence become Coptic. The prevailing point that Asar is making, is that Upper and Lower Egypt spoke different languages in ancient times. As someone who studied the predynastic era I have no problem with that. Why would we expect people from different nations, with different totems and deities to speak the same language?
I’m glad that someone is challenging Asar. We need to challenge our pioneers. My issue is that too much of the video was fluffed with appeals to authority in a field that has none. It exaggerates Asar’s claims as being radical and anti-consensus.
I saw a video where Christopher Ehret said the exact same thing as Mboli Asar, that the similarity of the languages could be explained by coming from a common source. He isn’t firm about the location or the time period either.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khepera9evolution: What is the Consensus on Greenbergs model? the consensus overwhelmingly agrees with the model... THe model has been under scrutiny since the 70's and it still stands AMONG EXPERTS... Name ONE EXPERT that agrees with Asar and Mboli... I said EXPERT not some fringe amateur that does this as a hobby
You are missing the point. All you need to disprove the Greenberg family model is a fringe hobbyist. l0lz
There is no Greenberg model. The thing isn't even half done. You are mistaking people who use it as a point of reference for supporting its methodology. Few support its methodology because it did not use methods for most of the languages. The video I showed you was a perfect example. Neter Neb is using it as a point of reference while demonstrating how its flawed. He took a throw away language family that was even classified in Nilo-Saharan with Dinka and a west African language that wasn't given a family in Dogon and demonstrated how ancient Egyptian transliterations break the Greenberg model.
Look at the earlier critiques on Greenberg
code:
By contrast, some linguists have sought to combine Greenberg's four African families into larger units. In particular, Edgar Gregersen (1972) proposed joining Niger–Congo and Nilo-Saharan into a larger family, which he termed Kongo-Saharan. Roger Blench (1995) suggests Niger–Congo is a subfamily of Nilo-Saharan.
quote: The best part about being Asar and Mboli is that no EXPERT knows they exist... they'd rather stay around people who don't know any better and make it appear as if they know what they are talking about...
He has experts on his channel all the time. He cites them. I put up 2K for a debate with people who disagreed with him like Joshua, Team Osiris, and DR. ỌBÁDÉLÉ KAMBON. Asar told me from the get that they don't want to debate him and he was right. They either said no or never followed up.
quote: And another thing this video showed is that they can't prove that these people interacted with each other. Why? because there is nothing to support it except LOOK ALIKE linguistics... If they are so sure on their model and claim its scientific, then why are they pushing their work on the likes of us and not academia? lol [/QB]
The video failed by even taking that stance. The cultures are too similar and the 'lookalike linguistics' are too grounded in culture. People arent just going to independently invent priest with leopard skin and fly whisk, male/female circumcision, finger waves, harps, magic wands, Pyramids, ink blot designs on shields, wearing bull tails as symbols of strength, ancestor worship, pleated beards for chiefs, harps, neck rings and Xhosa collars. The fact that the video would even take that stance is one of the main flaws in the video.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I’m a little confused. Everything stated about Coptic is common sense or easily verifiable. The prayers read in the Coptic Church are of a different language than what was spoken in the MK. The video constantly appealed to authority over just that, stating that Asar was making some radicle statement about Coptic not being an indigenous ancient Egyptian language. That was one of my issues with the video."
NO ONE SAYS THAT COPTIC AND MIDDLE EGYPTIAN ARE THE EXACT SAME THING. TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT COPTIC AND M-E AREN'T THE SAME IS REDUNDANT TO BEGIN WITH. IN HIS BOOK HE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE COPTS DON'T LOOK LIKE THE OLDER "RMTW" IN APPEARANCE. HE SAYS THAT SIMILARITIES IN COPTIC AND OTHER EGYPTIAN LANGUAGES CAME FROM FOREIGNERS LIVING SIDE BY SIDE WITH EGYPTIAN SPEAKERS ENOUGH TO MAKE RESEARCHERS >>THINK<< THAT COPTIC IS THE LAST STAGE OF EGYPTIAN. ITS A LIE AND HISTORICALLY INACCURATE WHICH IS WHY HE CAN'T SHOW ANY EVIDENCE OF IT.
"Egyptology is so backassward that you still have a bunch of people who see Coptic as an evolution from ‘the’ Egyptian language instead of an evolution from an Egyptian language. That is the only thing that may be somewhat advent garde in Asar and Mboli’s assessment. They are saying that Upper and Lower Egyptian were different languages."
HERE COMES THE FALLACIES. EGYPTOLOGY IS SO ASS BACKWARDS THAT HE USED SEVERAL EGYPTOLOGIST IN HIS BOOK THO. AND STOP WITH CONJECTURE AND MAYBE'S AND WHAT IFS. THE DUDE CREATED HIS OWN DEFINITION AS TO WHAT A DIALECT IS AND THEN CITED HIMSELF.
"Egyptology is dogmatically stupid. It’s founded on lies agreed upon and mythconceptions. They debate for a century on the race of ancient Egyptians while there are pictures of them on the walls, and sculptures in the ground. Then you have the fake Nubian people that they just agree to agree on. Egyptology is a stupid field of science so making appeals to consensus and authority is logical fallacy in the context of the video."
ANOTHER FALLACY. CHECK ASAR'S BIBLIOGRAPHY HE USES PLENTY OF EGYPTOLOGIST
"I think you are missing the point when you say it’s preposterous because the languages were spoken at different times."
SEE HOW YOU IGNORED THAT? THERE'S NO POINT. ITS STUPID TO SAY THAT ALL OF THOSE LANGUAGES WERE SPOKEN AT THE SAME TIME. WHEN ONE SAYS STUFF LIKE EX. BARAK OBAMA AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN PLAYED MADDEN ON PLAYSTATION THAT SHOWS HOW IGNORANT OF HISTORY YOU ARE.
The point is that before the Coptic Church and the Greeks moving their capital to the Delta the people in the Delta spoke a language that would, through confluence become Coptic. The prevailing point that Asar is making, is that Upper and Lower Egypt spoke different languages in ancient times. As someone who studied the predynastic era I have no problem with that. Why would we expect people from different nations, with different totems and deities to speak the same language?
THEY SPOKE DIFFERENT DIALECTS THAT WERE UNDETECTABLE UNTIL THEY STUDIED COPTIC
"I’m glad that someone is challenging Asar. We need to challenge our pioneers. My issue is that too much of the video was fluffed with appeals to authority in a field that has none. It exaggerates Asar’s claims as being radical and anti-consensus."
HE'S NOT A PIONEER
"I saw a video where Christopher Ehret said the exact same thing as Mboli Asar, that the similarity of the languages could be explained by coming from a common source. He isn’t firm about the location or the time period either."
WHAT LOCATION OF WHO? WHAT LANGUAGE EXACTLY?
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are missing the point. All you need to disprove the Greenberg family model is a fringe hobbyist. l0lz
THE ENTIRE FIELD OF AFRICAN LINGUISTICS ACCEPTS IT... NO ONE HAS STEPPED UP TO THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND PROVED IT WRONG.. SHOW ME WHERE ONE OF THESE FRINGE SCHOLARS ON YOUTUBE SHOWED AN EXPERT AT A UNIVERSITY THAT THEYRE WRONG.. YOU WON'T FIND IT. THEY'D RATHER TELL YOU THAT ITS INCORRECT AND YOU BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK... 50 YEARS SINCE THE GREENBERG MODEL IT HAS BEEN UNDER HEAVY SCRUTINY SINCE ITS INCEPTION BUT IT WITHSTOOD IT AND IS STILL THE STANDARD..
"There is no Greenberg model. The thing isn't even half done. You are mistaking people who use it as a point of reference for supporting its methodology. Few support its methodology because it did not use methods for most of the languages. [Big Grin] The video I showed you was a perfect example. Neter Neb is using it as a point of reference while demonstrating how its flawed. He took a throw away language family that was even classified in Nilo-Saharan with Dinka and a west African language that wasn't given a family in Dogon and demonstrated how ancient Egyptian transliterations break the Greenberg model."
I ASKED FOR EXPERTS THAT DISAGREE WITH HIS MODEL. AND THERE ARE SOME HOWEVER ACADEMIA AGREES WITH GREENBERG.
Look at the earlier critiques on Greenberg code:
I KNOW THE >>>EARLIER<<< CRITIQUES WHICH IS WHY IS SAID IT WAS UNDER HEAVY SCRUTINY AND STILL STOOD THE TEST OF TIME
He has experts on his channel all the time. He cites them. I put up 2K for a debate with people who disagreed with him like Joshua, Team Osiris, and DR. ỌBÁDÉLÉ KAMBON. Asar told me from the get that they don't want to debate him and he was right. They either said no or never followed up.
UMMM MBOLI AND GK CAMPBELL DUNN ARE NOT EXPERTS... DUNN SAYS THAT HE TIED LANGUAGE ISOLATE BASQUE TO NIGER CONGO SPEAKERS LMAO WHEN I HAD MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT A FEW WEEKS AGO I SAW IN A COUPLE OF FACEBOOK GROUPS PEOPLE POSTING TEAM OSIRIS VIDEOS REGARDING THIS TOPIC IN AMEN RA SQUAD GROUP... IVE SEEN SOME SCREENSHOTS IN TEAM OSIRIS GROUP THAT SAYS OTHERWISE... I INBOXED JOSHUA ABOUT IT AND HE SHOWED ME THE SCREENSHOTS... ADD HIM ON FACEBOOK... AND DR. KAMBON HAS A WHOLE FORUM WITH >>>ACTUAL LINGUIST<<< WHERE THEY DESTROYED ASAR ON HIS METHODOLOGY AND HIM ACTING LIKE HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT..
The video failed by even taking that stance. The cultures are too similar and the 'lookalike linguistics' are too grounded in culture. People arent just going to independently invent priest with leopard skin and fly whisk, male/female circumcision, finger waves, harps, magic wands, Pyramids, ink blot designs on shields, wearing bull tails as symbols of strength, ancestor worship, pleated beards for chiefs, harps, neck rings and Xhosa collars. The fact that the video would even take that stance is one of the main flaws in the video.
LMAO SO YOU SUPPORT CULTURAL DIFFUSION IE PEOPLE CAN'T INVENT SOMETHING ON THEIR OWN.. DID YOU SEE HIS OONI CROWN COMPARISON? OR THE WHITE CROWN COMPARISON? OR NAPOLEON'S ROBE? LMAO... OMG... ASAR NEEDS A HISTORY LESSON FIRST... YOU GUYS HAVE FANTASIES ABOUT AFRICA... MOST OF THE PEOPLE SPOKEN ABOUT IN THE BOOK HAVE NEVER HAD CONTACT AND THEY CAN'T PROVE IT. I CAN SEE WHY ASAR DIDN'T MENTION ANY DATES OR TIMELINES IN HIS BOOK.
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
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?
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.
IMO, it's still possible that they form a macrophylum relatively recently (~50ky or so). Languages can only be reconstructed back so far, so the nodes where they join, and the ages of those nodes (both of which may be obscured beyond recovery due to borrowing and language evolution), might be much younger than population splits. The nodes may also group languages in ways that are completely unexpected, with (parts of) Eurasian and African languages falling inside seemingly distinct African language families. Some of Clyde's work (and the work of others often dismissed as Afrocentric) may support that. Often the linguistic affinities may not be controversial, it's just how they're packaged as supposedly Proto-Bantu mediated, which ignores that Proto-Bantu itself did not originate in isolation of other African languages.
But what is clear is that such a macrophylum would not be structured like the tree below, which is self-defeating and self-debunking. Whatever methodology was used here, and whatever isolated commonalities are captured, the bizarre classification results don't vouch for Negro-Egyptian:
Notice how Middle Egyptian (M-E) and Coptic are on two different branches. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
To clarify: with that 50ky date, I was thinking along the lines of this, which is the last major expansion that affected all known NC, NS and AA speakers (but not, or only minimally, southern African Khoisan speakers):
If NC, NS and AA coalesce into a macrophylum after OOA, this would be one of the few promising expansions that could have spread it. The people carrying the lineages in that picture would have spoken the same ancestral language, that almost certainly led to AA. The only question as far as I'm concerned is, did their language also lead to NC and NS. We don't know because languages don't reconstruct that far back, and so the nodes specifying the relationships between NS, NC and AA are foggy. There were contemporary Africans, belonging to other lineages, who could have given birth to NC and NS.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: IMO, it's still possible that they form a macrophylum relatively recently (~50ky or so). Languages can only be reconstructed back so far, so the nodes where they join, and the ages of those nodes (both of which may be obscured beyond recovery due to borrowing and language evolution), might be much younger than population splits. The nodes may also group languages in ways that are completely unexpected, with (parts of) Eurasian and African languages falling inside seemingly distinct African language families. Some of Clyde's work (and the work of others often dismissed as Afrocentric) may support that. Often the linguistic affinities may not be controversial, it's just how they're packaged as supposedly Proto-Bantu mediated, which ignores that Proto-Bantu itself did not originate in isolation of other African languages.
NO ONE SAYS THAT COPTIC AND MIDDLE EGYPTIAN ARE THE EXACT SAME THING. TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT COPTIC AND M-E AREN'T THE SAME IS REDUNDANT TO BEGIN WITH. IN HIS BOOK HE CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE COPTS DON'T LOOK LIKE THE OLDER "RMTW" IN APPEARANCE. HE SAYS THAT SIMILARITIES IN COPTIC AND OTHER EGYPTIAN LANGUAGES CAME FROM FOREIGNERS LIVING SIDE BY SIDE WITH EGYPTIAN SPEAKERS ENOUGH TO MAKE RESEARCHERS >>THINK<< THAT COPTIC IS THE LAST STAGE OF EGYPTIAN. ITS A LIE AND HISTORICALLY INACCURATE WHICH IS WHY HE CAN'T SHOW ANY EVIDENCE OF IT.
I'm still not seeing how this is even worthy of discussion. Let me clarify...
You are saying that Asar is using a redundant argument because everyone knows Coptic is not the language of the MK?
That Asar is also redundant because researchers don't believe that Coptic is the last stage of a defacto language?
Do you see why I'm confused? I never really looked into it but I always assumed that Egyptology defined Coptic as the last stage of one language with some foreign influence. Thus the only areas where Asar and Mboli are going against the tide is when they say it was already a different language ie Upper and Lower Egypt had different languages simultaneously. That's my issue with the video. Its too passionate about stuff where they are probably wrong. Upper and Lower Egypt probably had different languages because they were different kingdoms with different deities, totems and sciences therewith.
quote:
HERE COMES THE FALLACIES. EGYPTOLOGY IS SO ASS BACKWARDS THAT HE USED SEVERAL EGYPTOLOGIST IN HIS BOOK THO. AND STOP WITH CONJECTURE AND MAYBE'S AND WHAT IFS. THE DUDE CREATED HIS OWN DEFINITION AS TO WHAT A DIALECT IS AND THEN CITED HIMSELF.
Even if we go by the dictionary definition of language and dialect we are probably still dealing with two different languages.
quote: ANOTHER FALLACY. CHECK ASAR'S BIBLIOGRAPHY HE USES PLENTY OF EGYPTOLOGIST
That means you have to be discerning. Basing analysis on the validity of Greenberg is not being discerning.
quote: SEE HOW YOU IGNORED THAT? THERE'S NO POINT. ITS STUPID TO SAY THAT ALL OF THOSE LANGUAGES WERE SPOKEN AT THE SAME TIME. WHEN ONE SAYS STUFF LIKE EX. BARAK OBAMA AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN PLAYED MADDEN ON PLAYSTATION THAT SHOWS HOW IGNORANT OF HISTORY YOU ARE.
Just because the name Coptic is new doesn’t mean they weren’t speaking the same language without the foreign influence. Writing in caps does not make you point more clear.
quote: THEY SPOKE DIFFERENT DIALECTS THAT WERE UNDETECTABLE UNTIL THEY STUDIED COPTIC
Coptic is an indigenous language to Lower Egypt which was a separate nation for thousands of years. Why would they ever speak the same language? Again this is my main issue with the video. It spends too much time on fluff stuff like this in an area where they are probably wrong anyway.
quote: WHAT LOCATION OF WHO? WHAT LANGUAGE EXACTLY?
I don’t remember the languages. I think it may have been in reference Obenga and other scholars. Its not just Egyptian transliterations. The Greenberg language families are related to each other in ways that seem to contradict the half-ass model. Ethiopia probably isn’t based on anything but a guess.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
“I'm still not seeing how this is even worthy of discussion. Let me clarify...
You are saying that Asar is using a redundant argument because everyone knows Coptic is not the language of the MK?
That Asar is also redundant because researchers don't believe that Coptic is the last stage of a defacto language?
Do you see why I'm confused? I never really looked into it but I always assumed that Egyptology defined Coptic as the last stage of one language with some foreign influence. Thus the only areas where Asar and Mboli are going against the tide is when they say it was already a different language ie Upper and Lower Egypt had different languages simultaneously. That's my issue with the video. Its too passionate about stuff where they are probably wrong. Upper and Lower Egypt probably had different languages because they were different kingdoms with different deities, totems and sciences therewith. ”
One more time
Noooooboooody says that Middle Egyptian and Coptic are the SAME
ONE MORE TIME NOBODY SAYS THAT MIDDLE EGYPTIAN AND COPTIC ARE THE SAME
They were spoken thousands of years apart.
Asar Imhotep makes a redundant argument Saying in his book several times that middle egytian and Coptic aren’t the same as if anyone in academia is making the argument that Middle Egyptian and Coptic are the same.... he made up an argument in his head
Secondly scholars say that Coptic is part of a language continuum in the Egyptian language ie the last stage. And that’s been proven.
Asar on the other hand says that it isn’t the last stage of the Egyptian language altogether. Which is completely false. He says it’s a different language that borrowed words from Old &Middle Egyptian speakers that didn’t even exist at the same time as Coptic in the common era....
If you don’t see how stupid that is I can’t help you.
To even substantiate that Coptic was around at the same time as old kingdom and Middle Kingdom, as he asserts, you’d have to prove it. It’s completely false. Damn did you read the damn book?
The video clearly highlights the chronological error in that.
Old Egyptian was the first phase 2600 BC - 2000 BC
Then middle Egyptian 2000 BC -1350 BC
Then late Egyptian 1350bc - 700 bc
Then demotic which he barely mentions 700 bc -400 AD
And the last stage Coptic was from the 1st century CE to now
Asar says all of those were spoken at the same time.... if think this is true then please don’t comment on this thread anymore... I can see why you like asar... both of you are chronologically challenged...
The main reason why that seemed to be highlighted in the video of a desperate and futile attempt to push Copts out of the Indigenous Egyptian history because of what Asar says they don’t look like the old Egyptians on the walls....
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
THE ENTIRE FIELD OF AFRICAN LINGUISTICS ACCEPTS IT... NO ONE HAS STEPPED UP TO THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND PROVED IT WRONG.. SHOW ME WHERE ONE OF THESE FRINGE SCHOLARS ON YOUTUBE SHOWED AN EXPERT AT A UNIVERSITY THAT THEYRE WRONG.. YOU WON'T FIND IT. THEY'D RATHER TELL YOU THAT ITS INCORRECT AND YOU BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE BLACK... 50 YEARS SINCE THE GREENBERG MODEL IT HAS BEEN UNDER HEAVY SCRUTINY SINCE ITS INCEPTION BUT IT WITHSTOOD IT AND IS STILL THE STANDARD..
I just showed you. I just did it. The Greenberg model is so half assed that I can break it with Google translate. Ntr Neb broke it in the video. Clyde already gave you a bunch of scholars who broke it in books.
quote: I ASKED FOR EXPERTS THAT DISAGREE WITH HIS MODEL. AND THERE ARE SOME HOWEVER ACADEMIA AGREES WITH GREENBERG.
I gave you a demonstration that I fact checked. That trumps your idea or my idea of an 'expert's' opinion.
quote: I KNOW THE >>>EARLIER<<< CRITIQUES WHICH IS WHY IS SAID IT WAS UNDER HEAVY SCRUTINY AND STILL STOOD THE TEST OF TIME
It stood as an outline or reference point, I'll even say that it does good work with the 'Kushitic languages' but its not much beyond that which is why you or I can break it with the African languages on google translate. It's no coincidence that the Greenberg model is always challenged and broken in a way that creates closer families ie Mboli's model. Greenberg was trying to match Coon.
quote:
UMMM MBOLI AND GK CAMPBELL DUNN ARE NOT EXPERTS... DUNN SAYS THAT HE TIED LANGUAGE ISOLATE BASQUE TO NIGER CONGO SPEAKERS LMAO
quote:A linguistic study carried out by professor Jaime Martín states that Basque comes from Dogon, a language spoken in Mali. He compared 2,274 words between both languages and found similarities in 70% of them.
That breaks the half-ass model because even though Greenberg never examined Dogon, Ntr Neb demonstrated how close it is to other African languages. You can tell just by looking at it.
quote: WHEN I HAD MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT A FEW WEEKS AGO I SAW IN A COUPLE OF FACEBOOK GROUPS PEOPLE POSTING TEAM OSIRIS VIDEOS REGARDING THIS TOPIC IN AMEN RA SQUAD GROUP... IVE SEEN SOME SCREENSHOTS IN TEAM OSIRIS GROUP THAT SAYS OTHERWISE... I INBOXED JOSHUA ABOUT IT AND HE SHOWED ME THE SCREENSHOTS... ADD HIM ON FACEBOOK... AND DR. KAMBON HAS A WHOLE FORUM WITH >>>ACTUAL LINGUIST<<< WHERE THEY DESTROYED ASAR ON HIS METHODOLOGY AND HIM ACTING LIKE HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT..
Don't go by what they say in public. They told me that they were down to debate in the comments section too. I put up a couple racks and no response which is exactly what Asar said was going to happen. I'm all about expanding our knowledge not ke keing with the clique on forums so I asked DR. Kambon to debate Asar and he said no. I'll leave it at that.
quote: LMAO SO YOU SUPPORT CULTURAL DIFFUSION IE PEOPLE CAN'T INVENT SOMETHING ON THEIR OWN.. DID YOU SEE HIS OONI CROWN COMPARISON? OR THE WHITE CROWN COMPARISON? OR NAPOLEON'S ROBE? LMAO... OMG... ASAR NEEDS A HISTORY LESSON FIRST... YOU GUYS HAVE FANTASIES ABOUT AFRICA... MOST OF THE PEOPLE SPOKEN ABOUT IN THE BOOK HAVE NEVER HAD CONTACT AND THEY CAN'T PROVE IT. I CAN SEE WHY ASAR DIDN'T MENTION ANY DATES OR TIMELINES IN HIS BOOK. [/QB]
I'm ok with it when its reasonable. Maybe people over yea and yonder discovered cinnamon and bread independently but if I see cinnamon rolls I think one source. The type of shared culture in Africa is like the cinnamon roll. Chancellor Williams said it but I don't think a lot of people understood it. Everywhere you go in Africa you see the same culture. This was probably true before recorded history.
That is another issue with the video. It uses 'dates' as a paper tiger and a deflection. Its a common logical fallacy/tactic among melinated people. Asar's assertions have little to do with an exact time scale. The video is beating up on something that isn't relevant in context. You are doing it too by saying he needs a 'history lesson' Herodotus stated that Ethiopians (when it was the middle of Africa) and Egyptians... " "For the people of Colchis are evidently Egyptian. . and Ethiopians alone of all the races of men have practiced circumcision from the first."
The 'father' of history can't give a date and circumcision in Egypt goes back to the Old Kingdom at least. I would argue that its older than that. Now if we talk about female circumcision insert racism. I can give you examples of people saying that it was brought to Egypt from sub-Sahara. When its something negative they are like &*%$ a cultural diffusion it came from Africa.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Secondly scholars say that Coptic is part of a language continuum in the Egyptian language ie the last stage. And that’s been proven.
That right there is a point of contention. I would argue that Coptic is the last stage of an Egyptian language not the Egyptian language.
quote: Asar on the other hand says that it isn’t the last stage of the Egyptian language altogether. Which is completely false.
Because he and I do not think that there was ever an Egyptian language. Egypt always had languages.
quote: To even substantiate that Coptic was around at the same time as old kingdom and Middle Kingdom, as he asserts, you’d have to prove it. It’s completely false. Damn did you read the damn book?
The video clearly highlights the chronological error in that.
Old Egyptian was the first phase 2600 BC - 2000 BC
Then middle Egyptian 2000 BC -1350 BC
Then late Egyptian 1350bc - 700 bc
Then demotic which he barely mentions 700 bc -400 AD
And the last stage Coptic was from the 1st century CE to now
Asar says all of those were spoken at the same time.... if think this is true then please don’t comment on this thread anymore... I can see why you like asar... both of you are chronologically challenged...
You missed the point that Asar was making. This is from Mboli's analysis that included Coptic in a separate branch from ME because there was always multiple languages therefore whatever came before the name Coptic was also a different language. So when Asar says they were speaking Coptic back in the day he is saying it is a new language in name only or it is a evolved form of a language that was already different in ancient times.
quote: The main reason why that seemed to be highlighted in the video of a desperate and futile attempt to push Copts out of the Indigenous Egyptian history because of what Asar says they don’t look like the old Egyptians on the walls.... [/QB]
Wrong. Asar was citing Mboli who's analysis demonstrated that Coptic was an indigenous Egyptian language that was related to other African languages more than its foreign influences.
The only real point of contention is over the amount of langues. They could have critiqued Asar on fluff statements like the Coptics not looking like the people of the ancient Delta instead they grab the fluff into a paper tiger. That's one of my main issues with the video. Its way too fluffed with deflections and paper tigers our conversation is a perfect example. Ntr Neb destroyed Greenberg in 7 minutes while they spend hours on fluff.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, what plays a big part in their circular reasoning, is that Negro-Egyptian is held together by some assumptions and claims, which Negro-Egyptian exponents tend overlook. For instance, the linguistic commonalities don't necessarily justify their conclusion that there must have been a Negro-Egyptian language family. We know that pastoralists from northeast Africa (e.g. Tenereans) were close to the Proto-Bantu homeland during the formation of Proto-Bantu (hence, the presence of R1b-V88 in Cameroon). These people came from the Middle Nile area and made an impact on the region, so merely listing linguistic commonalities seems arbitrary.
As someone who studies archaeological cultures and relationships, I know it's a recurrent theme that you cannot tell direction from commonalities. In other words, you can't take a bunch of commonalities and draw up a convenient narrative about the direction of influence. You have to take different scenarios and show that your explanation best explains the evidence. Negro-Egyptian supporters conveniently skip over that phase and pretend they're doing science. It's embarrassing how low standards they seem to have for what passes as valid evidence. They will even say that they're doing textbook linguistics, and that Greenberg and others are the ones who are going on a limb. If so, then why are Negro-Egyptian speakers invisible archaeologically and genetically? Where are the Negro-Egyptian haplogroups, genes, subsistence strategies, lithics, etc.?
So, you have it all worked out that Berber and Semitic are definitely not related to Egyptian, but you can't even tell me where the 'true negro-Egyptian ancestors' of Egyptians are, in the archaeological record? We just have to take their word for it that Negro-Egyptian speakers existed ~10ky ago, just because they have a list of linguistic commonalities that is open to more than one interpretation.
You are still doing it. Linear reasoning is deciding that A is better than B so building off of A. Circular reasoning is saying that A is better than B but B must still be possible because of C. People do it to me when I call white people albinos. I say white people are albinos because the same geneses reduce melanin in nature then someone wants to bring up ultra violet sun rays. You are doing the same with linguistics. You aren't using liner logic to explain C with D instead you are going into a circle to disprove A. That is the very definition of circular reasoning. You just accused someone of doing it before doing it yourself twice.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I just showed you. I just did it. The Greenberg model is so half assed that I can break it with Google translate. Ntr Neb broke it in the video. Clyde already gave you a bunch of scholars who broke it in books."
WHICH ONE OF THOSE SCHOLARS PROVED IT TO ACADEMIA? NOT ONE... ITS PSEUDOSCIENCE... I KNOW PEOPLE THAT SAY EVOLUTION ISN'T REAL AND PROVIDES WHAT THEY CALL EVIDENCE, BUT NOT ONE OF THEM HAS DEBATED SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS OR PROVED IT TO THE WORLD AT CONFERENCES AND SCHOLASTIC FORUMS.... GOOGLE TRANSLATE LMAO OMG.. I CAN SEE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE JUST A FAN OF ASAR
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
HE DEMONSTRATED THAT SHIT TO ASAR IMHOTEP AND THE LIKES OF THEIR FOLLOWERS... GENETICS JUST PROVED THAT THE BASQUE PEOPLE.... http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11917
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY EXPERTS ARE EXPERTS AND AMATEURS ARE AMATEURS... HOW DO YOU CONNECT AN LANGUAGE ISOLATE TO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T EVEN REMOTELY KIN TO ANYONE IN THE NIGER-CONGO? JUST STOP IT... THEY ALSO SAY THAT SUMERIAN (ANOTHER LANGUAGE ISOLATE) IS NIGER-CONGO... JESUS CHRIST! LMAO
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You missed the point that Asar was making. This is from Mboli's analysis that included Coptic in a separate branch from ME because there was always multiple languages therefore whatever came before the name Coptic was also a different language. So when Asar says they were speaking Coptic back in the day he is saying it is a new language in name only or it is a evolved form of a language that was already different in ancient times."
I DON'T NEED YOUR CONJECTURE AND STOP TRYING TO BE CAPTAIN SAVE A PSEUDO... ASAR IMHOTEP SAID THAT THESE LANGUAGES >>>MUTUALLY<<< INFLUENCED EACH OTHER. MEANING THAT COPTIC INFLUENCED MIDDLE EGYPTIAN AND MIDDLE EGYPTIAN INFLUENCED COPTIC AS HE PUTS "SIDE BY SIDE" THOSE ARE HIS WORDS... PLEASE STOP COMMENTING...
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong. Asar was citing Mboli who's analysis demonstrated that Coptic was an indigenous Egyptian language that was related to other African languages more than its foreign influences.
The only real point of contention is over the amount of langues. They could have critiqued Asar on fluff statements like the Coptics not looking like the people of the ancient Delta instead they grab the fluff into a paper tiger. That's one of my main issues with the video. Its way too fluffed with deflections and paper tigers our conversation is a perfect example. Ntr Neb destroyed Greenberg in 7 minutes while they spend hours on fluff."
ASAR SAID HIMSELF THAT THEY IDENTIFIED WITH PEOPLE FROM THE AEGEAN SEA. HE SAID HIMSELF IN HIS BOOK THAT COPTIC IS A RESULT OF BORROWINGS FROM MIDDLE EGYPTIAN SPEAKERS AND HE ALSO SAYS IF THEY WERE INDIGENOUS THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BORROW ANY GREEK CHARACTERS TO WRITE THEIR SCRIPT... BRO I KNOW YOU DIDN'T READ THE BOOK BECAUSE IM QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM HIS BOOK VERBATIM ON WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT COPTS AND COPTIC.
YOU'RE JUST AN ASAR IMHOTEP FAN BOY CLEARLY. YOU REMIND ME OF A RELIGIOUS PERSON. I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE AND YOU STILL SAY IT SAYS SOMETHING ELSE WHEN IM READING IT VERBATIM. DON'T TELL ME WHAT HE REALLY MEANT WHEN IM READING WHAT HE'S SAYING RIGHT NOW. THE VIDEO IS 2HR 30MIN AND YOU FOCUSED ON COPTIC. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU STUCK ON THAT.
AND LMAO AT SOMEBODY ON FACEBOOK DEBUNKING A LANGUAGE FAMILY THAT EVEN EXPERTS HAVE NOT TO DATE... IM SO GLAD IM NOT AFROCENTRIC LMAO
-------------------- I am evolution Posts: 15 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: You are still doing it. Linear reasoning is deciding that A is better than B so building off of A. Circular reasoning is saying that A is better than B but B must still be possible because of C. People do it to me when I call white people albinos. I say white people are albinos because the same geneses reduce melanin in nature then someone wants to bring up ultra violet sun rays. You are doing the same with linguistics. You aren't using liner logic to explain C with D instead you are going into a circle to disprove A. That is the very definition of circular reasoning. You just accused someone of doing it before doing it yourself twice. [/QB]
You sound confused. Let me help you apply the phrase correctly:
quote: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.
You see that? "Creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared". Can you understand that on your own, or do you need a new picture?
EDIT: Continued non sense about what the term means and denial about circular reasoning in Negro-Egyptian will get no reply.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
WHICH ONE OF THOSE SCHOLARS PROVED IT TO ACADEMIA? NOT ONE... ITS PSEUDOSCIENCE... I KNOW PEOPLE THAT SAY EVOLUTION ISN'T REAL AND PROVIDES WHAT THEY CALL EVIDENCE, BUT NOT ONE OF THEM HAS DEBATED SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS OR PROVED IT TO THE WORLD AT CONFERENCES AND SCHOLASTIC FORUMS.... GOOGLE TRANSLATE LMAO OMG.. I CAN SEE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE JUST A FAN OF ASAR
Back in caps?? I just gave you Ntr Neb's demonstration which I fact checked. A person that team Osiris regards as a linguist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws6Hhguxd88. The thing I like about Neb as a teacher is he is really good at sourcing. http://www.academia.edu/34440586/Ancient_Language_Dictionary_Corpus I gave you Asar's pieces on the word god which I also fact checked. I gave you two scholars on wikipedia that came to the same conclusion when they challenged the model-halfass. Clyde gave such a long list the mods called it spam. You are giving nothing but appeals to authority vs evidence. That is pseudo. I asked for a proto breakdown of Greenberg's families. Where are they?
quote: THIS IS EXACTLY WHY EXPERTS ARE EXPERTS AND AMATEURS ARE AMATEURS... HOW DO YOU CONNECT AN LANGUAGE ISOLATE TO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T EVEN REMOTELY KIN TO ANYONE IN THE NIGER-CONGO? JUST STOP IT... THEY ALSO SAY THAT SUMERIAN (ANOTHER LANGUAGE ISOLATE) IS NIGER-CONGO... JESUS CHRIST! LMAO
That's because it is. People have known about the relationship to the languages Greenberg called Niger Congo and Sumarian for a long time.
I already gave you academic sources... Is academia.edu an academic source?
quote: Sumerians, Iberians and Basques – A continuum P180614 Page 1 Sumerians, Iberians and Basques – A continuum By Matthias Ifejika Email: matthias.ifejika@gmail.com Abstract The Basque language is often touted as a language isolate yet a careful study of the language shows that it is related to Sumerian. The many features of Basque reveal that it is derived from a Niger-Congo language, which I have been able to identify as Igbo. In this brief expose, I show how some of its words had been derived
Since you have had Winters, Hermstein, Ifejika Walker, Imhotep, Dunn, Neb. But they are all wrong because of Greenberg? That is what I mean about being discerning. That is what was wrong with the video. The Greenberg families have no proto languages yet they argue that Niger-Congo languages, which people have demonstrated since the 30s are related to OoA languages is younger and begin in west Africa.
quote: I DON'T NEED YOUR CONJECTURE AND STOP TRYING TO BE CAPTAIN SAVE A PSEUDO... ASAR IMHOTEP SAID THAT THESE LANGUAGES >>>MUTUALLY<<< INFLUENCED EACH OTHER. MEANING THAT COPTIC INFLUENCED MIDDLE EGYPTIAN AND MIDDLE EGYPTIAN INFLUENCED COPTIC AS HE PUTS "SIDE BY SIDE" THOSE ARE HIS WORDS... PLEASE STOP COMMENTING...
I see why you mad. Because I cut through your BS. You jumped off your original claims to something else. Then made a big deal about the something else. I think you are Johnathan from team Osiris because that type of paper tiger emotion is what was in the video. At least you made a funny with captain save a pseudo but its still childish. I never said that Imhotep and Mboli did not claim that Coptic wasn't spoken at the same time as ME just not Coptic as we know it. Thus the crux of their argument and the only thing that is really new about their argument is the two languages.
quote: ASAR SAID HIMSELF THAT THEY IDENTIFIED WITH PEOPLE FROM THE AEGEAN SEA. HE SAID HIMSELF IN HIS BOOK THAT COPTIC IS A RESULT OF BORROWINGS FROM MIDDLE EGYPTIAN SPEAKERS AND HE ALSO SAYS IF THEY WERE INDIGENOUS THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BORROW ANY GREEK CHARACTERS TO WRITE THEIR SCRIPT... BRO I KNOW YOU DIDN'T READ THE BOOK BECAUSE IM QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM HIS BOOK VERBATIM ON WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT COPTS AND COPTIC.
Swenet just posted Mboli's model. As you can see Coptic is an indigenous African language, related to other African languages, that according to Asar was spoken in ancient times. Your lack of reading comprehension is amazing.
If Asar is already telling you by citing Mboli that Coptic is an indigenous Egyptian language when he mentions borrowing from ME speakers he is talking about the other languages of Egypt. When he says foreigners using a different script he is talking about people who look like this
they may be speaking an indigenous language but you can tell they aren't from there because they are using a foreign script.
quote: AND LMAO AT SOMEBODY ON FACEBOOK DEBUNKING A LANGUAGE FAMILY THAT EVEN EXPERTS HAVE NOT TO DATE... IM SO GLAD IM NOT AFROCENTRIC LMAO
This right here is why you fail. This is what leads to circular reasoning. Its the same as when Dr. Ali Muhammad says he refuses to believe in evolution. Its been a buckdancy day today.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You sound confused. Let me help you apply the phrase correctly:
quote: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.
You see that? "Creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared". Can you understand that on your own, or do you need a new picture?
EDIT: Continued non sense about what the term means and denial about circular reasoning in Negro-Egyptian will get no reply.
Thats not circular reasoning that is just reasoning that you put in a circular diagram. Negro Egyptian is just a name. It doesn't exist as anything before its created.
Nobody has done and adequate comparison of African languages. It was done, Negro Egyptian is its name. Doesn't mean that its without flaws however the flaws are not related to circular reasoning.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I understand Swenet better. His issue seems to be that Mboli named part of his classifications Negro-Egyptian after Obenga's like he was trying to match a foregone conclusion. You could argue that, that is circular reasoning.
Mboli and Obenga used different languages and methods. The name Negro-Egyptian was an ode and a challenge to Obenga, it was not a confirmation thus the confirmation bias of circular reasoning isn't relevant.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Apophenia: seeing patterns where there are none.
I decided to check some of the Igbo Basque
I found a few in half an hour... but this sorta stuff that I did with google translate
code:
Basque/Igbo Kiss Musu/Nsusu
Charm amara or mamasi/Xarma Think Utse/eche
See Ikusi/Ile
Fire Su/oku
Father Aita/Nna
Food Janari/Nri
Cry Oihu/Oku
Hole Zulo/Onu
Holding Eutsi/Ejide
Ball Baloia/Boolu
Win Irabazi/Imeri
Loose Galdu/Ida
Seems to go past coincidence. Until there is constant correspondence across concepts and verified word origins its just smoke. Awfully smokey though.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I think I understand Swenet better. His issue seems to be that Mboli named part of his classifications Negro-Egyptian after Obenga's like he was trying to match a foregone conclusion. You could argue that, that is circular reasoning.
Mboli and Obenga used different languages and methods. The name Negro-Egyptian was an ode and a challenge to Obenga, it was not a confirmation thus the confirmation bias of circular reasoning isn't relevant.
No you don't. And here is proof:
quote:Seems to go past coincidence. Until there is constant correspondence across concepts and verified word origins its just smoke. Awfully smokey though.
Past coincidence and indicating what, specifically? That Basque was influenced by a language ancestral to Yoruba? How have you proven that by listing similar looking words? Where is the evidence that the direction of influence was specifically from a language ancestral to Yoruba, to a language ancestral to Basque? How did you exclude influence in the other direction? How did you exclude that those commonalities don't reflect a third ancient language that has influenced both? How many words did you have to compare before finding words that look similar? How did you establish the quality of the supposed matches (i.e. are the words actually related)?
You're just restating your belief they're genetically related by claiming it and by finding words that you have decided for yourself, prove it (circular reasoning, see that picture). There is no actual evidence posted, since people have to take your word for it that you know what you're doing. You have not provided detailed analysis proving what you just did, means what you say it means. You have met your own goalpost, using your own arbitrary standards of what counts as evidence, which is circular reasoning.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No you don't. And here is proof:
The following was totally unrelated.
quote:Past coincidence and indicating what, specifically? That Basque was influenced by a language ancestral to Yoruba? How have you proven that by listing similar looking words? Where is the evidence that the direction of influence was specifically from a language ancestral to Yoruba, to a language ancestral to Basque? How did you exclude influence in the other direction? How did you exclude that those commonalities don't reflect a third ancient language that has influenced both? How many words did you have to compare before finding words that look similar? How did you establish the quality of the supposed matches (i.e. are the words actually related)?
You're just restating your belief they're genetically related by claiming it and by finding words that you have decided for yourself, prove it (circular reasoning, see that picture). There is no actual evidence posted, since people have to take your word for it that you know what you're doing. You have not provided detailed analysis proving what you just did, means what you say it means. You have met your own goalpost, using your own arbitrary standards of what counts as evidence, which is circular reasoning.
1. I've compared languages before. The rate is high and this was after eliminating the words people found. I'm finding similar words at a higher rate and at a higher rate of similarity.
To put it simple, other people are doing it with African languages. They are going as far as to theorize that Basque came from Dogon. Then I have the higher rate and higher rate of similarity.2 of three and I'm on the coincidence borderline. 3 of 3 and I'm moving past it.
2. What does it indicate? I've suspected that the reason why people have linked Niger Congo to OoA languages is because its old and traveled which breaks the Greenberg young isolate model.
3. How have you proven that by listing similar looking words?
Its not proven, just suspected for reasons in 1.
4. Where is the evidence that the direction of influence was specifically from a language ancestral to Yoruba, to a language ancestral to Basque? None. Welcome to African language families.
5. How did you exclude influence in the other direction?
I didn't. I remember Catherine Acholonu talked about the Igbo presence in Europe. They've also been linked to Etruscans. It's funny in a thread where Asar is called pseudo, he called Catherine Acholonu pseudo or that she reached too much. May she rest in power.
6. How did you exclude that those commonalities don't reflect a third ancient language that has influenced both? I would assume that this is the case because of the other African words.
7. How many words did you have to compare before finding words that look similar? First I was verifying what others were putting out. I scored them at 80% but google translate is not the best judge. I was seeing something similar every 7 or 8 words. Out of the 12 I found I probably went through 90. But remember this was after eliminating the ones that were already found. It cheats the rate a little. I might do it again and count.
8. How did you establish the quality of the supposed matches (i.e. are the words actually related)?
Would the word pass as a dialect ie could the word be understood in reasonable context.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The video I showed you was a perfect example. Neter Neb is using it as a point of reference while demonstrating how its flawed. He took a throw away language family that was even classified in Nilo-Saharan with Dinka and a west African language that wasn't given a family in Dogon and demonstrated how ancient Egyptian transliterations break the Greenberg model. 
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic