quote:

---

Take the Thuya Gene, for instance. Like most of the other Rare Genes from History, it has an African origin in deep time. But it experienced its greatest expansion in ancient Egypt, where it was carried by the queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of the temples.

(...)

We can imagine that Autosomal Thuya started out in East Africa about 100,000 years ago, and that her descendants were prominent in the first out-of-Africa group as well as in the Middle Easterners who helped spread agriculture, animal husbandry, religion and settled town life to Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:

From the link: "Obenga is a politically active proponent of Pan-Africanism."

His linguistic theories are not objective, they are rooted in his socio-political views.

---

And Carletoon Coon is a politaclly active proponent of racialism and white supremacy and?

His anthropological theories are not objective and they are rooted in his socio-political views which is why his work is debunked crap. Yet YOU still espouse his work.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
For those of you who have never heard of this guy: Theophile Obenga

---

quote:

---

Comparison among Afroasiatic languages is complicated by long-term language contacts and borrowing , where Berber and Chadic have influenced one another; Chadic has also been influenced by both "Niger-Congo" and "Nilo- Saharan" languages ; Omotic and Cushitic share areal traits; Egyptian influenced Semitic and was itself influenced; Cushitic has Semetic; and Semitic. especially through Arabic in the last millennium . has influenced many others.


The Afroasiatic union has relied mainly on morphological agreements in the pronominal paradigms and the presence of a masculine-feminine gender distinction. This evidence is attractive, but not completely compelling . As for lexical comparisons, Afroasiatic scholars are in general agreement that the findings have been more limited and harder to interpret . Indeed, the two recent large-scale attempts at Afroasiatic reconstructing and assembling large sets of cognates, Ehret(1995) and Orel and Stoibova(1995), are so radically different from one another, with little in common, that they raise questions about the possibility of viable reconstruction in Afroasiatic . As Newman reports, "the list of supposed cognate lexical items between Chadic and other Afroasiatic languages presented in the past have on the whole been less reliable " (Newman 1980:13), Newman (2000:262) recognized that "in the opinion of some scholars, the evidence supporting the relationship between the Chadic language family and other languages in the groups in the Afroasiatic phylum, such as Semitic and Berber, is not compelling." Jungraithmayr's (2000:91) conclusions raise even graver doubts about being able to classify Chadic successfully:

To sum up: As long as there are deep-rooted properties like pronominal morphemes - existent in a given language that hint a certain genetic origin, these properties ultimately determine the classification of that language. However, since most of the ancient (Hamitosemitic) structures and properties of the Chadic languages have been destroyed or at least mutilated and transformed to the extent that they can hardly be identified as such any more , it is crucial to study these languages as deeply and thoroughly as possible.


He notes "the enormous degree of linguistic complexity we encounter in the Chadic language," with observation that the degree of "Africanization" has sometimes reached the point where, structurally speaking, the similarities between Chadic and Niger-Congo and/or Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in their immediate vicinity have become more striking than between Chadic and other Hamitosemitic languages, particularly Berber or Semetic . These obvious surface similarities between Chadic and non-Chadic languages in central Sudan put an additional task load on the researcher's shoulders (Jungraithmayr 2000:91)


Nevertheless, Newman is of the opinion that "some points of resemblance in morphology and lexicon are so striking that if one did not assume relationship, they would be impossible to explain away." There is methodological lesson to be gained in examining Newman's (1980) argument, which has been considered strong evidence of Afroasiatic. Newman (1980:19) argued that in

a range of Afroasiatic languages from whatever branch, one finds that the words for 'blood,' 'moon; 'mouth' 'name' and 'nose' for example tend to be masculine: 'eye', 'fire, ' and 'Sun,' feminine; and 'water', grammatically plural...where the overall consistency in gender assignment contrasts strikingly with the considerable diversity in form.


He compared fourteen words which have the same gender across the branches of Afroasiatic and assumed this coincidence proves the genetic relationship. (Newman's table has fifteen items, but 'egg' is listed as doubtful, and in any case, there may be a non-arbitrary real-world connection between 'egg' and female gender.) There are several problems with this claim. First, it violates the principle of permitting only comparisons which involve both sound and meaning (see Chapter 7)- Newman's comparisons involve only meaning (gender) and the forms compared are not for the most part phonetically similar. Second, it assumes that the choice of the gender marking is equally arbitrary for each of the forms involved, but this is clearly not the case. For example, 'sun' and 'moon' tend to be paired cross linguistically in a set where the two have opposite genders, one masculine, one feminine - Newman's Afroasiatic masculine 'moon' and feminine 'sun' parallels Germanic and many other languages. In many languages including some of the ones compared here, feminine gender is associated with 'diminutive' ; this may explain why the larger animals of the list, 'crocodile' and 'monkey.' have masculine gender. In any case, of Newman's fourteen, only four are feminine; perhaps. then, masculine is in some way the unmarked gender, the gender most likely to be found unless there is some reason for a morpheme to be assigned to the feminine class. As for 'water' being in the "plural," in three of the language groups compared, masculine and plural have the same form, so that it would be just as accurate in these to say that water' was "masculine." Also for 'water,' plurality and mass noun may be associated in some non-arbitrary way. The most serious problem is that of probability. As Nichols ( 1996a) shows, even if there were an equal probability for any word in the set to show up either as masculine or feminine (and as just argued this is not the case), for Newman's argument to have force, it would need to involve a closed set with exactly these words with no others being tested for gender parallels. The probability of finding this number of forms with identical gender across the six branches of Afroasiatic when an open sample of basic nouns is searched comes out to be roughly equivalent to the fourteen in Newman's table - the number he found is about what should be expected. The argument, then, has no force.


Nichols (1997a:364) sees Afroasiatic as "an atypically stock-Like quasistock." She says it is "routinely accepted as a genetic grouping, though uncontroversial regular correspondences cannot be found." though she thinks it has a "distinctive grammatical signature that includes several morphological features at least two of which independently suffice statistically to show genetic relatedness beyond any reasonable doubt." As pointed out above, some Afroasiatic languages lack these, while some neighboring non-Afroasiatic languages which have been influenced by them have these traits . This being the case, these traits are neither necessary nor sufficient to show the genetic relationship.

-Language Classification: History and Method (2008) by Campbell and Poser

---

quote:

---

The initial warming of climate in the Belling-Allerød interstadial, 12,700-10,900 BCE, brought increased rainfall and warmer conditions in many African regions. Three sets of peoples, speaking languages of the three language families that predominate across the continent today, probably began their early expansions in this period. Nilo-Saharan peoples spread out in the areas around and east of the middle Nile River in what is today the country of Sudan. Peoples of a second family, Niger-Kordofanian (EDIT: to which Niger-Congo and Bantu are offshoots) , spread across an emerging east-west belt of savanna vegetation from the eastern Sudan to the western Atlantic coast of Africa. In the same era, communities speaking languages of the Erythraic branch of the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) family expanded beyond their origin areas in the Horn of Africa, northward to modern-day Egypt.

[...]


In the tenth millennium in the savannas of modern-day Mali, communities speaking early daughter languages of proto-Niger-Congo, itself an offshoot of the Niger-Kordofanian family , began to intensively collect wild grains, among them probably fonio.

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Ehret%20Africa%20in%20History%205-5-10.pdf

---

So the homeland of the Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and Afro-asiatic language is set in the eastern part of the Sahara-Sahel-Nile Belt in the area close to Sudan or in Sudan (aka Kush/Nubia/Nile Valley). He also add that those 3 African language family probably began their expansions in the 12,700-10,900 BCE period.

In the final chapter of his book, Obenga locate the homeland of the Negro-Egyptian language in the Nile Valley from the African Great lakes regions and place it at a time before 10 000-8000 BCE.

Which wonderfully also correspond to archeological evidences from that era:



So Ehret, situate the homeland of the 3 main language groups in Africa (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and Afro-asiatic), which encompass almost all African languages spoken today, in area close to Sudan, which happens to be the about the same location as where Obenga place the homeland of the Negro-Egyptian family. Which happens to be the same location African people were living in the period prior to the Holocene/Green Sahara (see image A). The only place inhabited during that era due to the extreme aridity.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Mary is very much wedded to the "Afroasiatic" idea. Just read her posts.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Poor Swenet (and apparently Djehuti) still having trouble integrating his old theories of 2003 or something with the recent DNA Tribes results about the Ancient Egyptian mummies (18th Dynasty, 20th Dynasty) and the fact that Ramses III is E1b1a, thus showing the close common origin (aka shared ancestry) of Central, Southern, Western Africans, other black African groups (to a lower degree) and Ancient Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers. Presumably, Ramses IIIs E-V38 isn't particularly close to examples further West either (reminder: E-M2 is older than E-M35), and the alleles uncovered by Hawass 2010 and 2012 are old pan African heritage:

---

Ramses III is E1b1a which is common in the area under the Sahara in the exact regions where DNA Tribes locate the closest Ancient Egyptian modern relatives.

quote:

---

Please don't fall down that trap of going that route. These populations were mostly Saharan populations.

---

quote:

---

Don't let the current North African genetic conditions fool you into reading particularly strong ties to Bantu speakers into these reports. Euronuts will take you up on your word that they're ''negroes'' and ask you to explain the low occurrence of certain hpa I makers in Dakleh Oasis and Kushite aDNA. They'll also ask you to explain morphological studies which make them look like hybrids compared to true negroes or Southern Sudanese Nilotes.

---

quote:

---

Don't give them that ammunition by interpreting the genetic results like Amun Ra et al have done in the past.

---

WHAT!!?!?!
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.

---

that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.

---

How are you defining "recently"? If the Egyptians share genetic affinities with "True Negro" Africans that don't appear in any non-Africans as per DNA Tribes, that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And Carletoon Coon is a politaclly active proponent of racialism and white supremacy and?

His anthropological theories are not objective and they are rooted in his socio-political views which is why his work is debunked crap. Yet YOU still espouse his work. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm not sure what you're saying Truthcentric. None of what has been uncovered so far demonstrates that Nile Valley populations diverged recently from Niger-Congo speakers.

---

How are you defining "recently"? If the Egyptians share genetic affinities with "True Negro" Africans that don't appear in any non-Africans as per DNA Tribes, that would suggest to me that the Egyptian/Niger-Congo divergence happened sometime after OOA at the very earliest. I wouldn't put the divergence date quite as recently as Amun-Ra insinuates though.

---

quote:

---

"There were many different dialects spoken in Kemet all along the Hapy itru (Nile River) from time immemorial. Mdw Ntr writing was used to communicate by people who spoke many different dialects. The picture words meant the same to everyone no matter what dialect they spoke. The vowels were not written in Medu Neter. The absence of vowels in the writing made it possible for everyone, no matter what dialect they spoke, to understand the writing, and still use their own unique pronunciation. There were also temporal dialects, these dialects are commonly referred to by scholars as Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian and Coptic, which is the final stage of the language. Coptic had several dialects of its own, namely, Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, and Achmimic. The grammar and vocabulary differed in these stages. Coptic is the only stage of the language wherein vowels were written, so it is by way of Coptic and other related African languages that we know something about original pronunciation of words…Coptic is no longer spoken although it still survives as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. (Amen, 2010: 3-4)."

---

quote:

---

"These designations, however, reflect not so much stages in the development of Egyptian language per se as, rather stages in the evolving political history of the various dynasties. What Gardiner called "Late Egyptian" was the dialect of Upper Kemet, traces of which were already noticed in the Old Kingdom in Upper Kemetic sites.3 In Dynasties VI-XI, the vernacular called "Middle Egyptian" was predominant in Kemet. During the First intermediate Period this dialect spread northward. By the late XIth and early XIIth Dynasties so-called Late Egyptian forms occur on all types of monumental inscriptions. When the Nubian regime regained power in the XVIIIth Dynasty, the vernacular of Upper Kemet spread with the establishment of the New Kingdom. Amen Hotep II (1450) composed a letter to his viceroy in Nubia and in it he used what has come to be called Late Egyptian: in other words, his language was that of Nubia or Upper Egypt."

---

quote:

---

"4. In France, one traditionally calls this family "Hamito-Semitic". Greenberg's appellation is a very neutral term indicating a family straddling Africa and Asia, although that for the latter, only the Middle East is represented: according to geographers, Lebanon (sic)or Arabia are in Asia because they are located on the other side of the Red Sea .

Afro-Asiatic comprises a great number of sub-families. That of Beja is called Cushitic, simply because of an error: one erroneously thought, for a long time, that Meroitic was a language from this family, related to Beja. The Kingdom of Meroe was in the past called the Kingdom of Kush. From "Kush", one created "Cushitic" and kept this appellation, even after that scholars had shown that the language of Kush was not "Cushitic", but Nilo-Saharan. Inside of Cushitic, there exists several groups. Beja is the only member of the Northern Cushitic group."

http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/gwenael-glatre/250310/du-nil-port-soudan-aux-origines-du-peuple-bedja-par-claude-rilly

---

quote:

---

"In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years (see Figure 1)

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
We also have to keep in mind some things like Niger-Congo is now thought to be a branch of Nilo-Saharan, thus giving us Kongo-Saharan. This would leave us with three branches of African languages: Kongo-Saharan, Khoisan and Afrisan.

---

quote:

---

Dr. Rkhty Amen, linguist and Egyptologist, in her article titled "The Unity of African Languages" in Karenga and Carruthers (1986) _Kemet and the African Worldview: Research, Rescue and Restoration_ gives us some real insight into the connectedness of these people and ancient Egyptians. But before we quote from here, let's first put some context derived from here 2010 book on learning /mdw nTr/.

quote:

---

"There were many different dialects spoken in Kemet all along the Hapy itru (Nile River) from time immemorial. Mdw Ntr writing was used to communicate by people who spoke many different dialects. The picture words meant the same to everyone no matter what dialect they spoke. The vowels were not written in Medu Neter. The absence of vowels in the writing made it possible for everyone, no matter what dialect they spoke, to understand the writing, and still use their own unique pronunciation. There were also temporal dialects, these dialects are commonly referred to by scholars as Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian and Coptic, which is the final stage of the language. Coptic had several dialects of its own, namely, Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, and Achmimic. The grammar and vocabulary differed in these stages. Coptic is the only stage of the language wherein vowels were written, so it is by way of Coptic and other related African languages that we know something about original pronunciation of words…Coptic is no longer spoken although it still survives as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. (Amen, 2010: 3-4)."

---

---

quote:

---

Add that to her earlier statement from here 1986 article that (speaking on the concept of Old, Middle and New Kingdom Egyptian):

quote:

---

"These designations, however, reflect not so much stages in the development of Egyptian language per se as, rather stages in the evolving political history of the various dynasties. What Gardiner called "Late Egyptian" was the dialect of Upper Kemet, traces of which were already noticed in the Old Kingdom in Upper Kemetic sites.3 In Dynasties VI-XI, the vernacular called "Middle Egyptian" was predominant in Kemet. During the First intermediate Period this dialect spread northward. By the late XIth and early XIIth Dynasties so-called Late Egyptian forms occur on all types of monumental inscriptions. When the Nubian regime regained power in the XVIIIth Dynasty, the vernacular of Upper Kemet spread with the establishment of the New Kingdom. Amen Hotep II (1450) composed a letter to his viceroy in Nubia and in it he used what has come to be called Late Egyptian: in other words, his language was that of Nubia or Upper Egypt."

---

Now juxtapose this information from Dr. Claude Rilly. I have translated here from the French.

quote:

---

"4. In France, one traditionally calls this family "Hamito-Semitic". Greenberg's appellation is a very neutral term indicating a family straddling Africa and Asia, although that for the latter, only the Middle East is represented: according to geographers, Lebanon (sic)or Arabia are in Asia because they are located on the other side of the Red Sea .

Afro-Asiatic comprises a great number of sub-families. That of Beja is called Cushitic, simply because of an error: one erroneously thought, for a long time, that Meroitic was a language from this family, related to Beja. The Kingdom of Meroe was in the past called the Kingdom of Kush. From "Kush", one created "Cushitic" and kept this appellation, even after that scholars had shown that the language of Kush was not "Cushitic", but Nilo-Saharan. Inside of Cushitic, there exists several groups. Beja is the only member of the Northern Cushitic group."

http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/gwenael-glatre/250310/du-nil-port-soudan-aux-origines-du-peuple-bedja-par-claude-rilly

---

This tells us a lot here. We know the 25th Dynasty was definitely a Kushitic dynasty, but we know other periods had Kushite families. The New Kingdom "dialect" spread when the Kushites took over Egypt and it became the "New Kingdom" vernacular. If the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, then the New Kingdom "dialect" is not an Egyptian language, but a Nilo-Saharan language which would explain its different grammar, also noted by Rkhty in her esay. This was the language of Upper Egypt or parts of it, even in the old kingdom as Amen and her sources noted. This explains the close relationship to Egyptian and Kalenjiin, a Nilo-Saharan language (see the books by Dr. Kipkoeech araap Sambu: _the Kalenjiin People's Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis, 2nd Edition (2007); _The Misiri Legend Explored: A linguistic inquiry into the Kalenjiin People's Oral Tradition of Ancient Egyptian Origin_.

The Kalenjiin people, for example, currently lives from South Sudan to the Great Lakes region, the exact same places where the DNA Tribes data currently finds correspondences between the mummies and modern peoples. Remember the statement from Diodorus Siculus which he notes, "The laws, customs, religious observances and letters of the ancient Egyptians closely resembled the Ethiopians, the colony still observing the customs of their ancestors." Remember in Book Three Diodorus stated that, ""The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out of them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent; but a sea at the beginning of the world, and that it was afterwards made land by the river Nile."

For those that don't know, the Kushites are the Ethiopians and the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. If the Egyptian language and culture comes from the "Ethiopians," then the language and customs are Kongo-Saharan which corresponds, again, to the DNA Tribes data which shows the affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers. Day-by-Day Obenga is being vindicated. Other work is being done which will demonstrate that Bantu didn't originate in Cameroon/Nigeria, but in the Sahara and moved south through the forest belt. This too is also supported by the DNA Tribes data:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Now juxtapose this information from Dr. Claude Rilly. I have translated here from the French.

quote:

---

"4. In France, one traditionally calls this family "Hamito-Semitic". Greenberg's appellation is a very neutral term indicating a family straddling Africa and Asia, although that for the latter, only the Middle East is represented: according to geographers, Lebanon (sic)or Arabia are in Asia because they are located on the other side of the Red Sea .

Afro-Asiatic comprises a great number of sub-families. That of Beja is called Cushitic, simply because of an error: one erroneously thought, for a long time, that Meroitic was a language from this family, related to Beja. The Kingdom of Meroe was in the past called the Kingdom of Kush. From "Kush", one created "Cushitic" and kept this appellation, even after that scholars had shown that the language of Kush was not "Cushitic", but Nilo-Saharan. Inside of Cushitic, there exists several groups. Beja is the only member of the Northern Cushitic group."

http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/gwenael-glatre/250310/du-nil-port-soudan-aux-origines-du-peuple-bedja-par-claude-rilly

---

This tells us a lot here. We know the 25th Dynasty was definitely a Kushitic dynasty, but we know other periods had Kushite families. The New Kingdom "dialect" spread when the Kushites took over Egypt and it became the "New Kingdom" vernacular. If the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language, then the New Kingdom "dialect" is not an Egyptian language, but a Nilo-Saharan language which would explain its different grammar, also noted by Rkhty in her esay. This was the language of Upper Egypt or parts of it, even in the old kingdom as Amen and her sources noted. This explains the close relationship to Egyptian and Kalenjiin, a Nilo-Saharan language (see the books by Dr. Kipkoeech araap Sambu: _the Kalenjiin People's Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis, 2nd Edition (2007); _The Misiri Legend Explored: A linguistic inquiry into the Kalenjiin People's Oral Tradition of Ancient Egyptian Origin_.

The Kalenjiin people, for example, currently lives from South Sudan to the Great Lakes region, the exact same places where the DNA Tribes data currently finds correspondences between the mummies and modern peoples. Remember the statement from Diodorus Siculus which he notes, "The laws, customs, religious observances and letters of the ancient Egyptians closely resembled the Ethiopians, the colony still observing the customs of their ancestors." Remember in Book Three Diodorus stated that, ""The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out of them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent; but a sea at the beginning of the world, and that it was afterwards made land by the river Nile."

For those that don't know, the Kushites are the Ethiopians and the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. If the Egyptian language and culture comes from the "Ethiopians," then the language and customs are Kongo-Saharan which corresponds, again, to the DNA Tribes data which shows the affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers. Day-by-Day Obenga is being vindicated. Other work is being done which will demonstrate that Bantu didn't originate in Cameroon/Nigeria, but in the Sahara and moved south through the forest belt. This too is also supported by the DNA Tribes data:

---

[/QUOTE]

The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.

There is increasing evidence that the Beja may provide a key to fully understanding the Meroitic language. Some years ago I deciphered the Kharamadoye inscription.


http://olmec98.net/KALABSHA.htm



Today Beja repeat this message from their ancestors with pride as an indication to the long history of the Beja people. At Buzzle.com
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/freedom-for-dirar-ahmed-dirar-independence-for-sudans-beja-blemmyes.html



They note:

quote:

---

…… Hrmdoye ne qor ene ariteñ lne mdes ne mni-t kene
mk lebne ye re qe-ne q yi-t hl-ne y es bo he-ne q r lebne tro.
S-ne ariteñ net er ek li s-ne d-b li lh ne q r kene qor ene mnpte.

This was heard already before 1670 years at a moment the Blemmyan King Kharamadoye drove his compatriots to a point of national statehood at the northern area of the then ailing Meroitic kingdom in what is today's Sudanese North and Egyptian South. Using Meroitic scripture, the scribes of Kharamadoye immortalized down to our times an inscription on walls of the Mandulis temple at Talmis (modern Kalabsha). The beginning of the inscription reads in a plausible English translation as follows:

Kharamadoye the monarch and chief of the living Ariteñ, the great son and patron of Amani, you (who) revitalizes (man). The lord's voyage of discovery indeed gives the creation of Good. Act (now Amani) he travels to support good. Make a good welfare swell (for) the offering of the Chief, (he) desires indeed the restoration of eminence. The patron of good Ariteñ bows in reverence (before Amani) to evoke exalted nourishment (for) the patrons to leave a grand and exalted legacy to behold good. Oh Amani make indeed (a) revitalization (of) the monarch (and) commander of Great Napata…..”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
This language was of the Kushite/Ethiopian people and the ancient Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language (Not cushitic), which is simply Kongo-Saharan. This is supported by later Greek writers such as Diadorus.

So when we see these genetic and linguistic affinities with Kongo-Saharan speakers, it all fits together with the Egyptian data. I have been studying these languages, customs and artistic features for a number of years now and the more and more evidence is revealed, the more affinities Egypt shows with Central And West Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Poor Swenet (and apparently Djehuti) still having trouble integrating his old theories of 2003 or something with the recent DNA Tribes results about the Ancient Egyptian mummies (18th Dynasty, 20th Dynasty) and the fact that Ramses III is E1b1a, thus showing the close common origin (aka shared ancestry) of Central, Southern, Western Africans, other black African groups (to a lower degree) and Ancient Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Ramses III is E1b1a which is common in the area under the Sahara in the exact regions where DNA Tribes locate the closest Ancient Egyptian modern relatives.

---

quote:

---

Sure they were Saharan populations but in the era just before 10, 000BC the Sahara was too arid to be inhabited and most African people were actually living south of the Sahara. A date which correspond the spreading of the main African language groups (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and "Afro-asiatic" all part of the Negro-Egyptian family). It's only after the greening of the Sahara in the early Holocene that the population moved north to occupy the Green Sahara of that period. Only to later on, migrate toward the Nile Valley again and the rest of Africa (Sahel, West Africa, Central Africa, south of Northern African countries, etc) in search of oasis and greener pastures when the Sahara got dry again. Those African ethnic groups who went to the Nile Valley eventually founded the great Ancient Egyptians civilizations. Others went on create the great Ghana(Wagadu), Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc African civilizations.

---

quote:

---

Tell those Euronuts that we prefer using actual DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies instead of modern people to base our theories about the common ancestry of Ancient Egyptians and African people.

As for the hybrid morphological traits, they are merely indication of the internal African morphological diversity. African people no matter where they live today (including Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, East Africans, etc) have a great variability of morphological features. For example, many West Africans, Central Africans or South Africans have narrow nose aperture and wider nose aperture. Same as Kushite and Ancient Egyptian people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Poor Swenet (and apparently Djehuti) still having trouble integrating his old theories of 2003 or something with the recent DNA Tribes results about the Ancient Egyptian mummies (18th Dynasty, 20th Dynasty) and the fact that Ramses III is E1b1a, thus showing the close common origin (aka shared ancestry) of Central, Southern, Western Africans, other black African groups (to a lower degree) and Ancient Egyptians.

---

What is there to integrate??! These findings support what we have been saying all along-- that Ancient Egyptians were Africans having ties and relations to other Africans. However, such a fact is a far cry from saying the Egyptians were close relatives even linguistically of Niger-Congo speakers! Even if Ramses carried E1b1b instead, that does not in anyway change things as there are E1b1b carriers in West Africa as well, mostly in the northern areas. So what is your point?

quote:

---

Ramses III is E1b1a which is common in the area under the Sahara in the exact regions where DNA Tribes locate the closest Ancient Egyptian modern relatives.

---

Yes, but that does not make him a Niger-Congo speaker anymore than someone carrying E1b1b is an Afrisian speaker.

quote:

---

Sure they were Saharan populations but in the era just before 10, 000BC the Sahara was too arid to be inhabited and most African people were actually living south of the Sahara. A date which correspond the spreading of the main African language groups (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo/Bantu), and "Afro-asiatic" all part of the Negro-Egyptian family). It's only after the greening of the Sahara in the early Holocene that the population moved north to occupy the Green Sahara of that period. Only to later on, migrate toward the Nile Valley again and the rest of Africa (Sahel, West Africa, Central Africa, south of Northern African countries, etc) in search of oasis and greener pastures when the Sahara got dry again. Those African ethnic groups who went to the Nile Valley eventually founded the great Ancient Egyptians civilizations. Others went on create the great Ghana(Wagadu), Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc African civilizations.

---

Yes but during neolithic times North Africa was wet and fertile and yes it was inhabited by various cultures but we have no evidence of Niger-Congo speakers in the Nile Valley. Only Nilo-Saharan and Afrisian speakers. This is not to say there were no Niger-Congo speakers at all, but there isn't any evidence for them. Don't you think it's rather bias to suggest Niger-Congo is synonymous with African.

quote:

---

Tell those Euronuts that we prefer using actual DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies instead of modern people to base our theories about the common ancestry of Ancient Egyptians and African people.

As for the hybrid morphological traits, they are merely indication of the internal African morphological diversity. African people no matter where they live today (including Nilo-Saharan, Bantu, East Africans, etc) have a great variability of morphological features. For example, many West Africans, Central Africans or South Africans have narrow nose aperture and wider nose aperture. Same as Kushite and Ancient Egyptian people.

---

And tell us something we don't already know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.

---

Ok, but isn't Beja a Cushitic language?

Isn't it possible that the similarity between Meroitic and other African languages like Beja or Niger-Congo languages be attributable to the days of the Negro-Egyptian language, that is before the differentiation into the language family we know now as Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian, Niger-kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan? All those languages (and Meroitic) sharing some similar words and grammar form because they are all descendant from the Negro-Egyptian phylum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.

---

No I am not saying that. I am saying that the whole classification system needs to be revisited. Again, the same criteria that doesn't make Afro-Asiatic a language phylum, is the same criteria that doesn't make Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan a language phylum. All African languages are related. How they are divided up and the criteria for the divisions has to be tackled from scratch by African researchers.

---

quote:

---

My studies over the years has convinced me that Egyptian is a Bantoid language as evidenced by the fossilization of noun-classes in Egyptian, with some still being very productive and hidden in the determinatives. The Nilo-Saharan connection is evident

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Meroites spoke a Niger-Congo language--not Nilo-Saharan. The Beja wrote in Meroitic, but this was toward the end of the Meroitic-Kushite Empire.

---

Ok, but isn't Beja a Cushitic language?

Isn't it possible that the similarity between Meroitic and other African languages like Beja or Niger-Congo languages be attributable to the days of the Negro-Egyptian language, that is before the differentiation into the language family we know now as Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian, Niger-kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan? All those languages (and Meroitic) sharing some similar words and grammar form because they are all descendant from the Negro-Egyptian phylum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So in your opinion, Ancient Egyptian don't share affinities with the Cushite and Chadic languages too? In addition to the Kongo-Saharan speakers, Obenga has demonstrated that all those languages are genetically related.

---

No I am not saying that. I am saying that the whole classification system needs to be revisited. Again, the same criteria that doesn't make Afro-Asiatic a language phylum, is the same criteria that doesn't make Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan a language phylum. All African languages are related. How they are divided up and the criteria for the divisions has to be tackled from scratch by African researchers.

---

Have you read Obenga's book? He's an African researcher and it is what he's been doing.

quote:

---

My studies over the years has convinced me that Egyptian is a Bantoid language as evidenced by the fossilization of noun-classes in Egyptian, with some still being very productive and hidden in the determinatives. The Nilo-Saharan connection is evident

---

You say no to my question but then you say yes in your answer. So according to you Ancient Egyptian is NOT a Cushitic or Chadic language. That is Cushitic and Chadic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian. Maybe only language borrowing between Cushitic/Chadic and Ancient Egyptian exist. According to you Ancient Egyptian is a Bantoid language and according to you (and other linguists) Bantoid and Nilo-Saharan are both part of the Kongo-Saharan phylum. So Ancient Egyptian is a Kongo-Saharan language which exclude Cushitic and Chadic. This is contradiction with Obenga's analysis in which Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian and Kongo-Saharan (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo) are linguistically genetically related. Or am I wrong and you say Cushitic and Chadic as well as Bantoid are also linguistically genetically related to Ancient Egyptian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And Carletoon Coon is a politaclly active proponent of racialism and white supremacy and?

His anthropological theories are not objective and they are rooted in his socio-political views which is why his work is debunked crap. Yet YOU still espouse his work.

---

Coon was apolitical, as is race realism. Those that deny races exist are the ones following political agendas. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
I am very familiar with Obenga's works, in English and in French and you are missing the point. Saying that Egyptian is not Chadic or Cushitic is NOT the same as saying that Egyptian is not genetically related to these language families.

As I stated, all African languages are 'related', but relatedness on what level? How close? When did they begin to diverge? These are the questions that historical comparative linguists ask. Egyptian is related to Semitic, but Semitic and Egyptian does NOT share a predialectical parent. In other words, Semitic and Egyptian does not have the same mother. They may have the same Great Great Grandmother, but they do not share the same parents. The same with Chadic and Cushitic (which may have given birth to Semitic).

---

A complete blasphemy for Obenga. In his comparative linguistic work, he has demonstrated that Semitic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian and other main African languages cited above at all beside through some language borrowing maybe (in both direction I would say). Although he relates Semitic with some African languages such as Ge'ez, Amharic and Tigrinya. I wonder if he would still place the homeland of those language in Africa?


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Those with political agendas .

No way can this nut be a college student. He is probably flunking all his courses.

May a Politcal Science major from the 1950's.


==============================================
Q: How are the DNA Tribes world regions defined?

A: DNA Tribes analysis does not make any
assumptions based on non-scientific racial divisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:

quote:

---

---

Those that deny races exist are the ones following political agendas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
A complete blasphemy for Obenga. In his comparative linguistic work, he has demonstrated that Semitic is not genetically related to Ancient Egyptian and other main African languages cited above at all beside through some language borrowing maybe (in both direction I would say). Although he relates Semitic with some African languages such as Ge'ez, Amharic and Tigrinya. I wonder if he would still place the homeland of those language in Africa?

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:


Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East -- by
Andrew Kitchen1,*,
Christopher Ehret2,
Shiferaw Assefa2 and
Connie J. Mulligan1

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1668/2703.full

---

You have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the homeland of Semitic. I'm talking about the homeland of those languages, the "Sud Arabique" (South Arabic) language family. It seems to make sense that the homeland of Semitic is in the near east. I wonder if Obenga classifies the homeland of the "Sud Arabic" family (including African languages such as Ge'ez, etc) in Africa like Ehret and many linguists placed the homeland of the debunked Afro-Asiatic phylum in Africa. Personally, I think Obenga is right about the language family of Africa and I hope African linguists built on it.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

I wonder if Obenga classifies the homeland of the "Sud Arabic" family (including African languages such as Ge'ez, etc) in Africa like Ehret and many linguists placed the homeland of the debunked Afro-Asiatic phylum in Africa.

---

code:

---

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
|  OBENGA          |    GREENBERG       |             DALBY                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                    |                                       |
|  Berber          |                    |                                       |
|                  |                    |                                       |
|------------------|     Afrisan        |          Northern Area of             |
|                  |                    |          Wider Affinity               |
|                  |                    |                                       |
|                  |                    |                                       |
|                  |                    |             --------------------------|
|  Negro-Egyptian  |                    |            |                          |
|                  |--------------------|-------------------------------------  |
|                  |                    |          Songhaic                   | |
|                  |                    |                                     | |
|                  |   Nilo-Saharan     |                                     | |
|                  |                    |          Saharic  ------------------  |
|                  |                    |          Sudanic |                    |
|                  |--------------------|------------------   Fragmentation Belt|
|                  |                    |            |                          |
|                  |                    |            |                          |
|                  |                    |             --------------------------|
|                  |                    |                                       |
|                  | Niger-Kordofanian  |          Southern Area of             |
|                  |                    |          Wider Affinity               |
|                  |                    |                                       |
|                  |                    |                                       |
|                  |                    |                                       |
|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------|
|   Khoisan        |     Khoisan        |          Khoisanic                    |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
THEOPHILE OBENGA



Origine commune de l'égyptien ancien, du copte et des langues négro-africaines modernes.
Introduction à la linguistique historique africaine

Table des matières

INTRODUCTION p. 7

CHAPITRE I. - Méthodologie p. 11
Principes de la linguistique historique.
L'indo-européen.
Critères légitimant la comparaison entre l'égyptien pharaonique, le copte et les langues négro-africaines modernes.
Recommandations du Colloque égyptologique international du Caire en 1974.

CHAPITRE II. - Identification et documentation p. 19.
Historique de la langue égyptienne.
Dialectes coptes.
Processus de l'emprunt fait au grec par le copte.
Dictionnaires, lexiques et grammaires pharaoniques et coptes.
Identification du mbochi.
Mbochi et Bantu.
Documentation scientifique sur le mbochi.

CHAPITRE III. - Phonétique historique de l'égyptien p. 29
Historique de la phonétique égyptienne.
Copte et moyen égyptien: phonologie.
Première approche relative à la vocalisation de l'égyptien pharaonique.
Systèmes consonantiques pharaonique et copte.
Voyelles coptes. Structure phonématique du copte.

CHAPITRE IV. - Définition et classement des phonèmes mbochi p. 53
Traits généraux.
Consonnes.
Voyelles.
Analyse tonématique.
Combinaison des phonèmes.
Conclusio

CHAPITRE V. - Système phonologique du berbère p. 67
Documentation.
Phonologie berbère: système consonantique et système vocalique.
Observations phonologiques.
Langues égyptienne et berbère: leur opposition irrémédiable

CHAPITRE VI. - Mythes chamito-sémitiques p. 79
Etymologie du mot " ham " ou " cham ".
Structure morphologique du sémitique, de l'égyptien et du berbère: étude comparative systématique.
Faits lexicologiques sémitiques, égyptiens et berbères: leur opposition fondamentale.
Le " chamito-sémitique " ou l'" afro-asiatique ", une véritable escroquerie scientifique.

CHAPITRE VII. - Correspondances morphologiques entre l'égyptien et le négo-africain p. 97
Classes nominales et articles définis.
Formation du pluriel.
Catégories grammaticales de genre sexuel.
Formation grammaticale d'abstraits.
Verbe-copule " être ". Pronoms personnels égyptiens et négro-africains.
Pronom personnel réfléchi.
Adjectifs et leurs emplois grammaticaux.
Adjectifs dits " nisbés ".
Obtention du comparatif et du superlatif.
Verbes et conjugaison verbale flexionnelle.
Réduplication. Causatif.
Particules verbales.
Temps et modes.
Formes simples et complexes du verbe: flexions verbales.
Particules auxiliaires verbales (morphèmes copules).
Expression du futur et tableau des éléments fonctionnels.
Particularités verbales idiomatiques. Le " m " dit de prédication.
Morphèmes négatifs: tableaux comparatifs.
Particules de liaison: tableaux comparatifs.

CHAPITRE VIII. - Cbangements et Règles de correspondances phonétiques p. 181
Lois phonétiques (" sound laws ").
Les données.
Analyse des faits pharaoniques, coptes et négro-africains.
Établissement de concordances phonétiques: les consonnes.
Arbres généalogiques.
Tableau d'ensemble.
Phénomène de métathèse.
Tableau.
Établissement de concordances phonétiques: les voyelles. Tableaux évolutifs.

CHAPITRE IX. - Faits et correspondances lexicologiques p. 259
Remarques générales.
Problème de l'emprunt linguistique et langues noncontiguës.
Intervention du copte.
Problème de l'héritage commun en linguistique.
Valeur culturelle et historique de certains lexèmes égyptiens et négroafricain:
"boeuf", "mouton/bélier", "singe/babouin" "éléphant", "hippopotame", "viande".
Deuxième approche relative à la vocalisation de l'égyptien pharaonique: ancien égyptien/nuer/banda/mande.
Confirmation par le négro-afticain de certaines lectures du pharaonique tenues pour douteuses.
Catégories ontologiques égyptiennes répandues dans toute l'Afrique noire.
Panthéon égyptien et divinités négro-africaines.
Rapprochements lexicologiques entre l'ancien égyptien, le copte et le négro-africain.

CHAPITRE X. - Parlers négro-égyptiens. Leur classification p. 343
Le Négro-égyptien, acquisition fondamentale de la linguistique africaine renouvelée.
Histoire ancienne du continent afticain et linguistique africaine.
Nonexistence des langues dites " semi " bantu.
Éclatement de vieilles barrières linguistiques imposées par des théories racistes entre les langues africaines.
Nécessité d'une géographie linguistique en Aftique noire.
Trois grandes familles linguistiques africaines: le négro-égyptien, le berbère et le khoisan.
La famille négro-égyptienne avec toutes ses branches et tous ses sous-groupes.
Le verbecopule " être " en négro-égyptien: comparaison systématique.

CHAPITRE XI. - Autres Parlers africains. Leur classification p. 361
Langues sémitiques de l'Aftique: groupe sémitique éthiopien.
Quelques emprunts faits par ce groupe au couchitique.
Parlers berbères actuels.
Langues khoisan.
Lexèmes hottentot.
Comparaison entre le khoisan et le berbère: l'inexistence des langues dites " charnitiques ".

CONCLUSION p. 373

BIBLIOGRAPHIE p. 377

ANNEXES p. 395

I. - Tableau du Négro-égyptien p. 394 -
II. - Tableau du Sémitique de l'Afrique p. 396 -
III. - Tableau du Berbère p. 397 -
IV. - Tableau du Khoisan p. 398.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted October 16, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:


Chapter VI
p.81

- Its is important when using linguistic comparative method to find cognates with a same morphological structure but with a similar semantic value.

"Hamito-Semitic" mononconsonantic paradigms:
1)"Mouth"
- Akkadian puu; Ugaritic p, Hebraïc pee, Phoenician p, Arabic fuu, "Ethiopian" 'af,
- Egyptian r', Coptic ro, la;
- Berber imi, ami, immi

2)"Sheep"
- Akkadian shu'u; Ugaritic sh, Hebraïc shee, Arabic shaa'
- Egyptian zr>sr, Coptic sro
- Berber ahruy

Those two words have absolutely nothing in common in the three compared families.

In the same vein, when Semitic basic vocabulary items is uniliteral, Egyptian is biliteral:
3)"brother"
- Akkadian axu; Ugaritic 'ax, Hebraïc 'aaH, Syriac 'aHaa, Arabic 'ax
- Egyptian sn, Coptic son, sen san;
- Berber gma (pl. aitma)

4)"voice"
- Ugaritic g
- Egyptian xrw, Coptic hrou, hroou

When Egyptian is uniliteral, Semitic is biliteral or triliteral:
5)"son"
- Common Semitic +bn, Phoenician bl, Aramean br
- Egyptian z3>s3
- Berber: yiwi "my son"/tarua "my sons"

6)"Man"
- Akkadian abilum/awilum
- Egyptian z>s, >Coptic so
- Berber: argaz "man"

Mbochi (Bantu o-si "a man from")

7)"Sun"

- Ugaritic shpsh, Common Semitic shmsh
- Egyptian r', Coptic rè
- Berber Tafukt

All these words are necessarily inherited, but a lexical, morphological,phonetic & semantic analysis of them in Semitic, Egyptian & Berber is far from pointing towards a common origin of them all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted October 18, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:


The theory of Berber genetic isolation may be explained by:
- a multigenetic origin of human language phylae
- the fact that all human languages are actually related but not relatable due to loss of common features due to linguistic innovation over the ages; modern isolated languages would be of the latter type.

Chap VI pp.82-83
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/10/p1010103ju4.jpg

Biconsonantal paradigms:

"Name"
- Akkadian shumu; Ugaritic sheem, Hebraïc sheem, Aramean shum, Arabic 'ism, Ethiopian sEm,
- Egyptian rn; Coptic ren ran len lan
- Berber ism

Berber is an obvious borrowing from Semitic.
Semitic shumu and Egyptian rn (sh vs r; m vs n) cannot be derived from a common root: it is an obvious fact:


"all"
- Akkadian kaluu; Ugaritic kl, Hebraïc kol, Syriac kol
- Egyptian nb; Coptic nim niben nifen nibi nibe
- Berber kul ~kullu

Berber is an obvious borowing from Arabic; Semitic has a consistant consonantic structure within itself: k-l, but it clearly cannot be linked to Egyptian n-b.

"earth"
- Akkadian ersetu; Ugaritic ArS, Hebraic 'ereS, Syriac 'A'ra , Arabic 'arD
- Egyptian t3 Coptic to te-
- Berber akal

While Semitic is biliteral or triliteral (r-s; r-s-t), Egyptian is uniliteral (t-), Berber is different (k-l): the differences speak for themselves.

"head"
- Akkadian rEshu; Hebraic roosh, Syriac reeshaa, Arabic ra's, Ethiopian rE's
- Egyptian tp Coptic apE apE afE
- Berber agayyu

The consonantic structure of these elements is again totally different.

"good"
- Akkadian Taabu; Hebraic tob, Syriac taabaa, Arabic Taab
- Egyptian nfr; Coptic nofrE nofri nafri
- Berber ifulki iZil iEadel

It's again impossible to demonstrate the common origin of these forms.

Next is the question of the substantive feminine marking in the three branches/languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted October 19, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:

Chap VII pp.85-86
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3163/p1010104xh2.jpg
For the word scorpio, Semitic shows a structure composed of a "double consonant" + a consonant while Egyptian has srq.t & Berber ighirdem, again totally different structures.

About the expression of grammatical gender of substantives, the situation is not as clear as some Hamito-Semiticists claim it to be.

Semitic languages distinguish two genders: masculine & feminine.

Semitic masculine nouns don't have a special marker while feminine use a -(a)t suffix:
Akkadian sharr-u "king" sharrat-u "queen"
Ugaritic il "god" ilt "goddess"
Syriac biishaa "bad" biishtaa "bad (feminine)"
Arabic malik "king" malikat "queen";

Egyptian displays the same pattern:
s3 "son" s3.t "daughter";

Same with Berber, which displays a circumfix th-th (with th>t after a "n")
amr'ar "old man" thamr'arth "old woman"; ushshen "jackal", thushshent "she-jackal";

However none of those are exclusive, or even dominant. In Hebrew & Syriac, feminine is most often ended by a simple -aa: Hebrew Toob "good", Toobaa "good (feminine); Syriac biish/biishaa (feminine). It seems to be the same for Neo-Punic, according to transcriptions of Hnt by Anna, alma for 'lmt while Phoenician & Moabite don't show this phenomenon. In Arabic there is also a feminine ended by -aa':
'asfar (m) SaaFraa' (f) "yellow"
'aSgar(m) Sugraa(f) "smaller"


There are also some Hebrew & Syriac feminines ending by -ay: Saray "Lady" (Hebrew), tu'yay "error" (Syriac); In Syriac, numeral feminine is -EE: 'eSrEE "ten" and 'Esree in numbers from 11 to 19. In Ethiopian though, the final -ee isn't associated with feminine gender.

There are also several cases of Semitic languages showing suffix -t not associated with feminine gender:
Arabic xaliifat "caliph", Hebrew qoohelet "caliph" aren't feminine; Arabic nafs, Hebrew nepeS, Syriac napsha, Ethiopian nafs, "soul" are both feminine and masculine while Arabic 'arD, Hebrew 'ereS, Syriac 'ar'aa "earth" are feminine.

Actually, feminine morpheme aren't only used for the formation of feminine substantives, but also for diminutives, pejoratives, abstracts, collectives; they are all part of a very complex system that also deals with numbers.

In Berber, some nouns that design neither male or female have the feminine marker minus the final th: thimes "fire", thizi "collar", tharga "drain". Some substantives get their feminine from lost roots: azgar "ox", thafousnat "cow": the form afounas "ox" in Kel-Ouï Tuaregs, Beni Menacer, Riffian, Mzabites, Siwa. Also, ikerri "sheep", feminine "thikhsi seems to be the feminine form of a word retained in Guanche as a masculine:axa.

Coptic lost the Pharaonic -t feminine suffix: m3'.t "truth"> Coptic mE, mEE,mèi; sn "brother, snt "sister">Coptic son "brother", soonE "sister".

But in Pharaonic Egyptian, it has been possible to establish a chronology of the final -t whose loss had already began at the time of the Old Kingdom and that this actual grammatical gender was followed by a virtual grammatical gender in the whole Egyptian system.

Thus, because of the diversity of feminine suffixes in Berber & Semitic, it is quite premature to draw conclusions about genetic relationship between Berber, Semitic & Egyptian: the affix "t" to form the feminine is nor dominant nor systematic, into each branch (Semitic, Berber, Egyptien), let alone in a completely irreal Hamito-Semitic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted October 21, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:

Chap VII pp.86-87
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/664/p1010105us2.jpg
Some authors also pointed out the similarity between the expression of nominal plural in Egyptian and Semitic in support of the Hamito-Semitic hypothesis:
- u, w for masculine plural
- ut, wt for feminine plural

Facts are actually much more complex; Semitic internal and external masculine plurals, Semitic feminine and dual only have a very few in common with Egyptian masculine & feminine plurals, with Egyptian dual. The resemblance above definitely seems to be due to chance since there are so many plural morphologies in Semitic, as opposed to the only -w, -wt Egyptian ending.

Semitic External Masculine plural(suffixation):
- uu "nominative"
- ii/ee "genitive/accusative"

- aan "masculine"
- aat "feminine"

- aan+uu "nominative"
- aan+ii "genitive/accusative"
- uutu "nominative"
- uuti "genitive/accusative"

- m or n with or without a vowel in Northwest Semitic;


Semitic internal masculine plural

Semiticists consider internal plurals as being inherited from Proto-Semitic; it is still widely used in Southern Semitic and remains of it are found in Northwest Semitic as well, although not in Ugaritic.

Disyllabic paradigms with a short vowel:
- Arabic qit'at "piece", pl. qita'
- Ethiopian 'Ezn "ear", pl. 'Ezan"

Monosyllabic paradigms with a short vowel:
- Arabic 'aHmar "red", pl. Humr

Disyllabic paradigms with a long vowel at the second syllable or a second short vowel + the feminine suffix
- Arabic baHr "sea", pl. biHar
- Ethiopian Tabib "wiseman", pl. Tababt
- Arabic kaafir "infidel" kafarat


Paradigms displaying consonantic lengthening:
- Arabic kaatib "writer", pl. kuttab

Paradigms displaying prefixation as expression of the plural:
- Arabic marad "disease" pl. 'amraad
- South Arabic byt "house" pl. 'byt
- Ethiopian lEbs "cloth", 'albaas

Paradigms displaying suffixation as expression of the plural:
- Arabic djaar, pl. djiiraan "neighbours"

Quadriconsonants:
- Arabic ''aqrib, pl. 'aqaarib "scorpio"
- Ethiopian mal'ak, pl. malaa' Ekt
- Arabic faaris, pl. fawaaris "cavaliers"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:

Chap VII pp.88-89
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/1066/p1010106vx5.jpg
Semitic feminine plural is of the external type:

code:

---

  

                                   -(a)t (singular);      -aat (plural) 
Examples: malik "king",         malikat  "queen",     malikaat "queens" 

---

In casual marked Semitic languages, the markings are added to the feminine affix. Ex

code:

---

Akkadian  sharrum "king"        sharratum "queen"     sharraatum "queens"   
         (nominative singular) (nominative singular) (nominative plural)
 

---

In North-West Semitic, Hebrew has the suffix -oot for the feminine plural:

code:

---

          bEraakaa "blessing"                        bEraakoot "blessings" 

---

Syriac has -aat in construct and emphatic forms, but aan in the absolute form, probably by analogy with the masculine plural -in.

Sometimes, the feminine plural ending is superposed to that of the singular:

code:

---

 Ex:Ethiopian

                                 barakat "blessing" barakataat "blessings" 

---

But one must also note that the -aat ending is also found among masculine nouns.

code:

---

 
Ex:Akkadian
iishaatu "fire" iishataatuu "fires"

---

In several Semitic languages are found singular feminine substantives but with a plural ending:

code:

---

 Hebrew "year"   shaanaa, pl. shaanim (shaanot constructed state)
 Syriac "garden" gannEta, pl. gannee                              

---

There are also feminine singular substantives with no morpheme indicating feminine gender;

code:

---

 

Akkadian "road"        xarraanu,  pl. xarranaatuu 
Hebrew   "she-donkey"  'aaton,    pl. 'atoonoot 

---

The reason he has that much insisted on the formation of Semitic is because the Hamito-Semitic myth must be "destroyed". One lies to the layman when one says that Egyptian plural w~wt agrees with Semitic's. It is completely false since Egyptian can only be w~wt, never

code:

---

 -aanu, -an, -aani, -im, -iin, -uutu, -uuti, -aat, -ii, -ee, etc.

---

The agreement between Semitic -uu & Egyptian -w has to be explained by chance, not by a common origin. If not, why would Egyptian have only inherited the Semitic nominative form out of the whole paradigm?

Egyptian has no internal/external plural distinction unlike Semitic: hence noun morphology is completely different in the two languages/Branches.

According to a linguist going by the name of René Basset, Berber's plural may be extrenal, internal, or both; the two latter patterns are similar to broken plurals found among Deutero-Semitic languages (Ethiopian, Midianite, Arabic); the latter, which has been thought to be a combinaison of the former is actually the oldest.

Only Semitic & Berber have broken plurals, Egyptian never does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted October 26, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:


According to late Beja specialist Werner Vycichl, Beja has three ways of expressing plural, reduplication (not found often), last vowel shortening & suffixation of -a. The two former, although not based on the same exact pattern of Semitic, are clearly non-concatenative, hence dissimilar to Old Egyptian suffixation.

Chapter VI, pp. 88-89

code:

---

   
Some examples of Berber "broken" plural formation:
- aghiul   "ass";      pl. ighial
- asgass   "year";     pl. isgassen
- ir'allen "arm";      pl. ir'allen
- illi     "daughter"; pl. issi 
.
Again Berber is totally different from Egyptian:
- s3t "daughter"; pl. s3wt
- ib  "heart";    pl. ibw
 

---

How can one claim that Hamito-Semitic does actually exist relying on this?

The dual is frequently used in Akkadian, Ugaritic & Arabic, which may suggest that it is only secondary in other Semitic languages.

code:

---

  
 
Akkadian:  - aan  (dative),     een  (genitive),             iin (accusative);
Ugaritic:  - aami (nominative), eemi (genitive/accusative)
Hebraic:   - ayn
Syriac:    - En~                een                                            (only found as a retention in two words)
Ethiopian: - ee                                                                (only found in a few cases)
Arabic:    - aani (nominative)
           -                    ayni (genitive/accusative)

---

While Berber doesn't make grammatical use of dual, it seems to agree with Semitic in occurrences of natural pairs (suffixes -in,-en, -an for dual are also found in Semitic) :

code:

---

  
- adar   "foot" pl. idaren 
- tit    "eye"  pl. allen 
- aDalis "lip"  pl. dilsan (Ghadamès)
- aDaluy "lip"  pl. iDlay  (Ahaggar)

---

Semitic languages originally marked three principal cases:

code:

---

  
 
- nominative            (sing. -u,                          pl. -uu, dual -aa), 
- genitive/accusative   (sing. -i(genitive), -a(accusative) pl. -i,  dual -ay), 
.
Examples:
Classical Arabic "king"   Malik-u                          Malik-i   Malik-a
.
Akkadian         "good"    Taab-u                           Taab-i    Taab-a
.
There is however a class of words whose both genitive and accusative are formed with the same suffix -a.

---

In Egyptian, Pharaonic and Coptic there are absolutely no traces of casual marking. Why would the most archaic synchrony of Egyptian have lost any trace of Proto-Hamito-Semitic as Akkadian (a language contemporary to Pharaonic Egyptian) did?

The truth is that Hamito-Semitic does not exist. This is a myth with no morphological basis. A myth that must be destroyed by the real science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted October 31, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:

Erratum:
Of course, at the end of my last post, I meant "why would have Akkadian retained the casual marking system while Egyptian didn't at all?" & vice versa.

Chap. VI pp.92-93

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/4610/p1010108qp0.jpg

In Semitic, the 3rd person independant personal pronouns are the following:

code:

---

               singular masc.  singular fem.   plural masc.   plural fem.
Akkadian       shu             shi             shunu          shina
Ugaritic       hw              hy              hm             hm
Hebrew         huu             hii             hEm(ma)        hEn(na)
Syriac         huu             hii             hennoon        henneen
Arabic         huwa            hiya            hum(uu)        hunna
Ethiopian      wE'Etu          yE'Eti          'Emuuntuu      'Emaantuu 

---

Hence, there are forms with:
- an initial sh: Akkadian & Southern Arabian (except Sabean)
- an initial h (for the rest, except Ethiopian)
(while Ethiopian dropped the initial h and then evolved from 'wu>wu>wE & 'iy>yi>yE and the following suffixation of the final element -tii/tuu)

The two forms are of Proto-Semitic origin, but which one is the earlier? There is no consensus on the question.

However, those forms are completely absent in Egyptian from Pharaonic to Coptic where there are no gutturals nor post-alveolar fricatives, only s (feminine sing.), f (masculine singular), and sn (plural) for the personal suffix pronoun; sw, sy, sn, st (masculine & feminine singular, masculine & feminine plural), for the deopendent personal pronouns; ntf, nts, ntsn for the independent personal pronouns.

Berber's dependent personal pronouns are the following:

code:

---

netta (masc), nettsath (fem), nittheni (masc plural), netthenti (fem. plural)

---

The Berber suffix pronouns (s (singular), sn (pl. masc), snt (pl. fem.), agree a bit with Egyptian, but this a superficial resemblance: Berber doesn't have the Egyptian f.

Wolof has the same forms for the third person , singular & plural; Obenga cites Serge Sauneron who said that the resemblance cannot be due to chance and is thus necessarily due to a common origin of the two languages.

Egyptian has no relative pronouns while Semitic & Berber have.

code:

---

          Singular                 Plural         Dual

Akkadian  shu, shi shashat shati   shuut shaat    sha
Berber    enni                                           (invariant) 

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted October 31, 2007 by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT:

Chap VII pp.94-96 (final part of the chapter)
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1237/p1010109uq8.jpg
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4303/p1010110lv5.jpg
Obviously inherited lexical items clearly show the irreality of "Hamito-Semitic", since Berber, Semitic have no common lexical structure with Egyptian:

code:

---

glose	Semitic	Egyptian	Berber
sun	shmsh (common Semitic)	r’, re	tafukt
year	sn 
	(Lihyanitic)	rnpt rompE rompi	asggas
	shaanaa 	(Hebrew) 		
	sanat 	(Arabic)		
place	macom (Phoenician)
+maqam
	bw, ma	ida
night	Arabic	layl	grH, D3w	iD
	Ethiopian 	leelit		
	Hebrew	luun, liin		
	Ugaritic	lyn		
name	+sumum, samum 	rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn	ism, isEm
take !	Sabat ! (Akkadian)	m, mi, mo	ameZ
ear	sinn 
	(Arabic)	msDr	ameZZugh
	sEn 	(Ethiopian)		
teeth	Akkadian	uzun	Tst	axs
	Assyrian	uzan		
	Hebrew	‘ozen		
	Arabic	‘uDn		
	Ethiopian	‘Ezn		
brother	Akkadian	axu	sn, son	g-ma, ait-ma (pl.)
	Ugaritic	ax		
	Hebrew	‘aaH		
	Syriac	‘aHaa		
	Arabic	‘ax		
	Epigraphic South Arabian	‘x		
	Ethiopian	‘Exw (labialized x)		
to enter	Akkadian	‘rb	‘q, 3q, ook	ekSem
	Hebrew	‘rb		
	Syriac	‘rb		
	Arabic	Grb		
	Epigraphic South Arabian	Grb		
black	‘aswad (Arabic)	km, kamE, kEmi	isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen
blood	dam (common Semitic)	snf, snfw, snof	idammen
beautiful	Hasan (Arabic)	nfr, nofre, nofri	iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki
eternity	‘almiin (Eastern Syriac)	D.t, nHH, EnEh	
god	il (Ugaritic)	nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE	rEbbi (Arabic Allah)
soul	Hebrew	nepesh	b3, bai	RroH, laRuaH (pl.) 
	Syriac	napsha		
	Arabic	nafs		
	Ethiopian	nafs		
river	naaru (Akkadian)	itrw	asif
hand	yd, yad (common Semitic)	Dr.t, ‘ (« arm »)	ufus, afus
house	bayit (Hebrew)	pr	tigemmi
head	+ra’sh 	common Semitic	tp, apE, afE	agayyu, ixf
	reeshu	Akkadian		
	roosh	Hebrew		
	ra’s	Arabic		

---

In conclusion, the results of a strict linguistic analysis are the following :

- There are no parallels between Semitic, Berber and Egyptian regarding consonantic structure, grammatical gender, formation of dual and plural, declination, casual morphologies, personal and relative pronouns.

- About verbal themes, the use of reduplication does not have the same extension in Egyptian and in Semitic.

- Also, Egyptian doesn’t have the prefixal conjugation found and the derived compound verbal themes found in Semitic.

- The verbal forms sDm.f and sDm.n.f don’t exist in Semitic.

- Egyptian prepositions and conjunctions are not found in Semitic : Egyptian m « as, like » vs Akkadian ki(ma), Ugaritic k, Hebrew kE(moo), Syriac ‘ak, Arabic kaa, Ethiopian kEmaa « as, like » ; Egyptian xr « upon, above », vs Akkadian ‘l, Ugaritic ‘l, Syriac ‘al, Hebrew ‘al, Arabic ‘ala, Ethiopian la’la « upon, above ». Berber has zud~zund « as , like », and iggi « upon »

- Inherited lexical that can hardly be borrowed from a language to another (see examples above) even in a situation of cultural linguistic dominance are different in Semitic, Egyptian and Berber. Cardinal numbers (1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 100, 1000) are also much different in the three language groups.

Hence, « Hamito-Semitic » or « Afro-Asiatic » is an illusion, a myth.

---

code:

---

GLOSS     SEMITIC                              EGYPTIAN                   BERBER
.
sun       shmsh   (common Semitic)             r’, re                     tafukt
year      sn      (Lihyanitic)                 rnpt, rompE, rompi         asggas 
          shaanaa (Hebrew) 
          sanat   (Arabic) 
place     macom   (Phoenician)                 bw, ma                     ida
         +maqam 
night     layl    (Arabic)                     grH, D3w                   iD 
          leelit  (Ethiopian) 
          luun    (Hebrew)
          liin    (Hebrew) 
          lyn     (Ugaritic) 
name      samum                                rn, ran, ren, lAn, lEn     ism, isEm
         +sumum
take      Sabat   (Akkadian)                   m, mi, mo                  ameZ
ear       sinn    (Arabic)                     msDr                       ameZZugh 
          sEn     (Ethiopian) 
teeth     uzun    (Akkadian)                   Tst                        axs 
          uzan    (Assyrian) 
          ‘ozen   (Hebrew) 
          ‘uDn    (Arabic) 
          ‘Ezn    (Ethiopian) 
brother   axu     (Akkadian)                   sn, son                    g-ma, ait-ma (pl.) 
          ax      (Ugaritic) 
          ‘aaH    (Hebrew) 
          ‘aHaa   (Syriac) 
          ‘ax     (Arabic) 
          ‘x      (Epigraphic South Arabian) 
          ‘Exw    (Ethiopian - labialized x) 
to enter  ‘rb     (Akkadian)                   ‘q, 3q, ook                ekSem 
          ‘rb     (Hebrew) 
          'rb     (Syriac) 
          Grb     (Arabic) 
          Grb     (Epigraphic South Arabian) 
black     ‘aswad  (Arabic)                     km, kamE, kEmi             isgin, isggan, istif, dlu, bexxen
blood     dam     (common Semitic)             snf, snfw, snof            idammen
beautiful Hasan   (Arabic)                     nfr, nofre, nofri          iga shbab, iga zzin, fulki
eternity  ‘almiin (Eastern Syriac)             D.t, nHH, EnEh 
god       il      (Ugaritic)                   nTr, nutE, nuti, noutE     rEbbi 
          Allah   (Arabic)
soul      nepesh  (Hebrew)                     b3, bai                    RroH, laRuaH (pl.) 
          napsha  (Syriac) 
          nafs    (Arabic) 
          nafs    (Ethiopian) 
river     naaru   (Akkadian)                   itrw                       asif
hand      yd, yad (common Semitic)             Dr.t, ‘ (« arm »)          ufus, afus
house     bayit   (Hebrew) pr tigemmi
head     +ra’sh   (common Semitic)             tp, apE, afE               agayyu, ixf 
          reeshu  (Akkadian)
          roosh   (Hebrew) 
          ra’s    (Arabic)                                                                                    

---

 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Again, I have no linguistic training whatsoever, so I am in a poor position to evaluate those excerpts from Obenga's book. However, as far as I can tell he makes a lot of valid points about the dubious relationship between Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic. Good work, Tukuler. I wonder if there's a more complete English translation out there?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 





______________________________________________

The earliest written evidence of an Afroasiatic language is an Ancient Egyptian inscription of c. 3400 BC (5,400 years ago).[11] Symbols on Gerzean pottery resembling Egyptian hieroglyphs date back to c. 4000 BC, suggesting a still earlier possible date. This gives us a minimum date for the age of Afroasiatic. However, Ancient Egyptian is highly divergent from Proto-Afroasiatic (Trombetti 1905: 1–2), and considerable time must have elapsed in between them. Estimates of the date at which the Proto-Afroasiatic language was spoken vary widely. They fall within a range between approximately 7500 BC (9,500 years ago) and approximately 16,000 BC (18,000 years ago). According to Igor M. Diakonoff (1988: 33n), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 10,000 BC. According to Christopher Ehret (2002: 35–36), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 11,000 BC at the latest and possibly as early as c. 16,000 BC. These dates are older than dates associated with most other proto-languages.


read this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=C7XhcYoFxaQC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=%2

Nilo-Sahaarn by Lionel Bender
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Here's another link (using imageshack) to the Negro-Egyptian family tree since the new photobucket site makes it difficult to see the original file (at times, apparently) in its full size.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3020/table1negroegyptianlang.jpg
 

---

Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
 
Hopefully in the future I will have time to do a summary. But here is the title of his latest work on the subject:


Theophile OBENGA l'egyptian pharaonique: une langue negro-africaine (Egyptien, Dagara, Yoruba, Baule, Dogon, langues du Bahr el-Ghazal.

http://www.presenceafricaine.com/livres-histoire-politique-afrique-caraibes/790-l-egyptien-pharaonique-une-langue-negro-africaine-9782708708075.html

Une étude de linguistique historique et comparative sur les rapports entre l'égyptien pharaonique et plusieurs langues africaines. L'étude est précédée d'un exposé sur les principes méthodologiques de la linguistique historique. L'ouvrage est illustré de cartes, de photos d'objets ainsi que de nombreux dessins d'hiéroglyphes.


My translation:

quote:

---

A study of historical and comparative linguistics on the relationship between Pharaonic Egyptian and several African languages​​. The study was preceded by an exposé on the methodological principles of historical linguistics. The book is illustrated with maps, photos of objects as well as numerous drawings of hieroglyphics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Great topic. To summarize, it looks like the truth about the Afroasian language is now being told. All the lies by previous linguist is now being exposed.

Ehret cracked the door and Obenga blew it wide open

---

Diop and Lilias Homburger cracked the door before Ehret or Obenga.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Besides post dating Obenga, Ehret does not see
Egyptic, Tamazight, and Semitic as unrelated.
He maintains the Greenberg unity of those three.

As a sidebar here's a repost from April 2005 on
the evolution of Obenga's Egyptian-BlackAfrican
language macrophylum:

1913 - Homburger formulates theory of commonality of languages from
the North-east African Nile to the Atlantic coast, across the swathe of
the Sudan, i.e. "Negro-Africa." She excludes North Africa and Berber.

1924 - Delafosse employs the term Negro-African. He excluded Afrasian
(Tamazight, Egyptian, Cushitic, Semitic) and Khoisan from this group.
'Groupe senegalo-guineen'
in A. Meillet & M. Cohen (eds)
Langues du Monde
Paris: Champion, 1924

1941 - Homburger proposes Egyptian as the source of Negro-African
with Dravidian as the possible source for both language groups.
L. Homburger
Les langues negro-africaines et le peuples qui le parlent
Paris: Payot, 1941

1974 - Obenga delineates between Negro-African and Berber. He says
Berber shares no typological, morphological, phonemic, lexicological, or
syntactic similarities in the least with Egyptian.
Report of the symposium on
'The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script'
The General History of Africa - Studies and Documents No. 1
Paris: Unesco, 1978
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
In addition to Obenga's new book,L'égyptien pharaonique: une langue négro-africaine, mentioned in this thread by Asar Imhotep. Here's another book which also built on his pioneer work:




Origine des langues africaines: essai d'application de la méthode by Jean-Claude Mboli

I don't have the book, only read some excerpt off the web, but after explaining the comparative methodology, debunking Greenberg classification among other things. He use the comparative method to compare Middle Egyptian, Copte, Sango (his native language), Zande, Hausa, Somali. Proving that they are genetically linked.

Combined with Obenga's new book in which he compares Ancient Egyptian with Niger-Congo family languages (and Bahr El-Ghazal language which I don't know their family). This should provides another fundamental entry into African comparative linguistic and history.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB][/QB]

---

Don't forget Cheikh Anta Diop too including the book Parenté génétique de l'égyptien pharaonique et des langues négro-africaines (1977) among others.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Afro-Asiatic and Semitic genealogical trees (version of Alexander Militarev).


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Regardless of however you want to group things, Semitic, Egyptic, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, and Berber are all related to each other.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Regardless of however you want to group things, Semitic, Egyptic, Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic, and Berber are all related to each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ Correct. The problem with Obenga and other Africanist scholars like him is that in their hellbent approach to show commonalities and relations between the various cultures of Africa, especially Egypt, they propose all sorts of 'Pan-African' language phyla.

---

quote:

---

Problem is Indo-European does NOT comprise all the languages of Europe nor is a Pan-African phylum even necessary to demonstrate the various features common the cultures and languages of the African continent.

---

quote:

---

By constructing some false 'Pan-African' phylum, all they are doing is reducing the linguistic and cultural diversity of Africa which is a much larger continent with much older (the oldest) populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Correct. The problem with Obenga and other Africanist scholars like him is that in their hellbent approach to show commonalities and relations between the various cultures of Africa, especially Egypt, they propose all sorts of 'Pan-African' language phyla. This mentality was betrayed by Clyde Winters when he admitted that the goal is to emulate (my paraphrase) the Indo-European phylum of Europe. Problem is Indo-European does NOT comprise all the languages of Europe nor is a Pan-African phylum even necessary to demonstrate the various features common the cultures and languages of the African continent. By constructing some false 'Pan-African' phylum, all they are doing is reducing the linguistic and cultural diversity of Africa which is a much larger continent with much older (the oldest) populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
they have to be part of the exact same lineage as them, so they can feel extra special.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
How can something be debunked when it hasn't even been replicated and peer reviewed. How many researchers have independently come up with something even remotely resembling Obenga's phyla propositions in peer reviewed journals? Is Obenga even a linguist?

What multi-disciplinary evidence is there for Negro-Egyptian? We know all pristine Afro-Asiatic speakers (including relict and at times excluded Omotic speakers) had/have a group of NRY E-M35 and mtDNA M1 sublineage carriers as their signature common ancestors, so we know they descent from the same proto-language speaking community at some point in the terminal pleistocene.

We know all Afro-Asiatic speakers have/had specific cultural traits like henotheism in common. We know the Berber language is strongly correlated with NRY E-M81, which branches off the same Y chromosome that unites all Afrasan speakers (E-M35). We know Afrasan speakers have words for specific inventions like grindstones in common.

What are such fundamental, unlikely to have been acquired by simple borrowing/liaisons, but rather, common ancestry indicating multi-disciplinary unifying traits within ''Negro-Egyptian''?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
they have to be part of the exact same lineage as them, so they can feel extra special.

---

Funny from somebody who pretend Africans and Semites are from the same lineage aka the Hamito-semitic/Afro-Asiatic language family to use your own kind of argumentation (or lack thereof).

For the 10th times, I don't believe Africans are from the same lineage not more than the English, French, Russian, Urdu, Hindi are considered from the same lineage [Beside the fact we're all humans off course, sprung from the same African Mitochondrial Eve]. Since the days of the Negro-Egyptian (Afro-Egyptian) phylum Africans had a long time to evolve into their current diversity and lineages. Africa is a mosaic of diversified and inter-related cultures and people.

In Africa, there's a lot of commonalities and a lot of differences as well. People who want to undermine the commonalities or differences have an agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Certainly not what the linguistic evidences from this thread suggest as the so-called Afro-Asiatic phylum has been debunked by people like Obenga and a few others.

---

quote:

---

^^ This drivel by Djehuti is completely baseless. For one, which is the most important thing, it's not base on any linguistic arguments; just fluff and emotions. I don't think Djehuti or his companion Swenet even read Obenga's work or other such books cited above.

---

quote:

---

That's rich for somebody who's hell bent on showing us commonalities between Africans and Semites [aka the Hamito-Semitic/Afro-Asiatic language family].

---

quote:

---

For one,the Negro-Egyptian phylum like the Indo-European phylum doesn't comprise ALL the languages of Africa either. African languages such as Berber languages are not included, nor are the Khoisan African languages or African languages such as Ge'ez or Amharic. So that point is moot, even if it was moot to begin with since it's not based on any linguistic arguments.

---

quote:

---

That's ridiculous. Obenga's Negro-Egyptian phylum like the Indo-European phylum was a language spoken by African people a very long time ago. Since then, African languages had time to evolve into their current diversity.

---

quote:

---

For example, the Indo-European phylum is comprised of: Spanish, English, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, German, Marathi, French, Italian, Punjabi, and Urdu.

Language such as English, Urdu, Russian and Italian are considered to be from the same family! It doesn't mean that it's not diverse. They are just genetically related from a long time ago. Similar case with African languages such as Bantu languages (already proven to be related), Ancient Egyptian, Yoruba, Kanuri, Afar, Dogon, Wolof which are genetically related. It doesn't negate their diversity in any way since they had a lot of time to evolve into their current form since the Negro-Egyptian/Afro-Egyptian days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL You do realize that technically speaking 'Semite' is a linguistic group the same way 'Latino' or 'Hispanic'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
As the resident geneticist of ES I'm curious, Dr. Mindlessovermatter/Sweetie, where did you receive your specialist training?

---

 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 


No seriously Mindless, you always post as if you were a specialist in the field and everybody else were amateurs. I thought you were a geneticist until Dana enlightened me. You are very defense when your "integrity" is questioned. Your pretentious posts makes sense now. In fact was wondering if you applied to a university program and got turned down or something so you take refuge on the net with this huge chip on your shoulder. I can't blame them, however, I mean if you are going around claiming Europeans as hybrids of Bay Area Chinese and Central African pygmies then it's no wonder they rejected your dumbass. lol
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Damn, you're onto my little secret. Oh no, not this right after exposing me for being mindovermatter. Please don't tell anyone.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL You do realize that technically speaking 'Semite' is a linguistic group the same way 'Latino' or 'Hispanic'

---

There you have it. Notice that Obenga uses the same fallacy. Its interesting to note that Obenga's material has extra appeal to those who are already susceptible to this fallacy. I've always suspected that Obenga and a large part of his following are secretly letting 'race' become a factor to the issue of whether the Berber and Semitic languages are related to Cushitic and Egyptian.

Obenga's & Amun's fallacy reminds me of the resistance in some early Eurocentric quarters to incorporate the Chadic family in Afrasian, because many Chadic speakers are darker skinned, and not particularly close in phenotype to the average Afrasan speaker to the East. Obenga is doing the EXACT same thing to Berber and Semitic, only difference is he's using a mirror opposite pseudo-scientific ideology.

---

Yes and unfortunately Diop despite his brilliant accuracy in other things made the same error when he tried to dissociate Berber from Egyptian and other Afrisian languages as 'European' despite Berber languages being exclusive to Africa. Even Clyde Winters takes it to the next level where he dismisses Berber as Eurasian yet includes Dravidian as African.

These guys are obviously consumed with racialism.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeingdumb:

As the resident geneticist of ES I'm curious, Dr. Mindlessovermatter/Sweetie, where did you receive your specialist training?

---

Let's say you aren't playing pretend about your profession the same way you like to do about my sexuality... Your logical fallacy would then be 'Appeal to Authority' since being an authority on a subject does not mean you are correct about the subject. How many times have we debated the conclusions and works of experts in this forum before? Even you yourself love to pounce on Bowcock and Sforza even though their conclusions about African admixture among Euros is correct.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Mindless is the resident geneticist of ES, stupid. I think you are one too.
 

---

Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
 
While I disagree on some points espoused by Amun, he is correct in this sense. Everyone who claims to be against Obenga's work has never read ANY of his linguistic arguments and it is obvious. I have also noticed that these same persons do not keep up with linguistic research and know the different schools of thought or what the real arguments have been. They never attend linguistic and historical conferences and have no clue of what the "consensus" is. If you have a disagreement with his research, you have to debunk it linguistically and not one of the detractors above has proposed a linguistic argument against what he has actually written.

As I have stated before on this forum, Negro-Africaines is NOT Diop and Obenga's brainchild. It is L. Homburger before Diop. They have advanced the work of her thesis and others have corroborated it in many ways. Secondly, Obenga is NOT the only one questioning the validity of Afro-Asiatic as a super language family. Amun has already cited NON OBENGA SOURCES and NON AFROCENTRIC SOURCES which make this same claim. So if one is to attack Obenga, one must attack all of the other qualified linguists who say the same thing as Obenga.

If one was to read Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse's book _African Languages: An Introduction (2000)_ one could read the chapter on Afro-Asiatic by Richard Hayward and get a sense of the shakiness by which this family is defended. If one was to go down further and read Paul Newman's article on "Comparative Linguistics" in the same cited work, he states the following:

quote:

---

Heine and Nurse (2000: 161-2)

(c) The job of the comparative linguist is to provide the best explanation possible consistent with the facts. In proposing a classification, it is not necessary that a linguist 'prove' that the classification is absolutely certain by the presentation of conclusive evidence. In response to widely speculative classifications that had been offered at various times by irresponsible scholars, many careful, emperically based linguists jumped to the opposite extreme and took the position that all languages should be treated as unrelated unless and until proved otherwise. This was thought to be a prudent scientific requirement. However, on close inspection, the requirement turns out to be untenable and not in keeping with standard scientific procedures. All that the comparative linguist can be expected to do is look at a pair or group of languages. If resemblances show up that appear to be greater than could be expected by chance, the linguist has to ask why. Could the resemblances be accounted for by universal sound symbolism, could they reflect areal characteristics, could they perhaps be due to borrowing from one language into another, or are the resemblances of the kind that are indicative of common origin? If the latter is the case, the linguist is justified in postulating a genetic relationship even if the evidence is still somewhat on the weak side. For example, in the opinion of some scholars, the evidence supporting the relationship between Chadic language family and other language groups in the Afroasiatic phylum, such as Semitic and Berber, is not compelling. Nevertheless, some points of resemblance in morphology and lexicon are so striking that if one did not assume relationship, they would be impossible to explain away. The classification of Chadic within the Afroasiatic is thus fully justified, not because it has been 'proved' as in a court of law, but because it is the explanation most consistent with the facts as a whole.

---

This is telling and informs us of the changes in attitudes as it regards language classifications. I argue it is because of linquists like Obenga who have constantly challenged them on the Afro-Asiatic hypothesis, that these attitudes have changed in such a way that they can put a 'loop-hole' in the method so they can keep their established language phylums. The author above would place Obenga in the "extreme" category of those who require "proof" of the language family. By using the comparative method, Afro-Asiatic cannot be said to be a language phylum. However, if we use the criterion from the quote above, if we have "just enough evidence," we would be justified in positing a language family. This releaves the Afrisan proponents from having to demonstrate rigorous proof of the phylum. This is what got Greensberg in trouble with Asian and Native-American languages. They require proof before categorization, where as the Africanists do not.

The problem is that when this is done in the reverse, one wants to move the goal post in the middle of the game. For if this is the case, then Wolof, Bantu and Nilo-Saharan languages belong to the same family as Egyptian as established by Diop, Obenga, Bilolo, Anselin, Oduyoye, Ndigi, Lam, Pfouma, Sambu and others who have established the relationship, using sound linguistic methods, between Egyptian and Kongo-Saharan languages, which forces a reclassification of African languages which Obenga has attempted to do.

The more I study this, the more Obenga is being vendicated by the evidence from various different areas of study. As I stated before, my problem with Obenga's past work is that the same criteria used to NOT establish Afro-Asiatic as a language family, is the same that doesn't establish Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan. So it is an issue of consistency as he uses those proposed families unchecked in his Negro-Africaines (the larger family for Berber, Negro-Egyptian and Khoisan).

So with this said, it would be of benefit to actually take the time out and study the field of linguistics so one can come to a linguistic conclusion and not one based on how one feels.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I wasn't around at the time and reconstructed proto
languages at a family stage are all only guesses. I
have to have some stock in African born linguists who
by necessity speak at least two African languages all
their lives. Born and raised African linguists have an
advantage, they think and dream in (an) African
language(s).

Questioning Obenga's qualifications (link) -- the opposite
of accepting non-African linguists no questions asked --
shows forgetfulness of what "esteemed non-African
specialist" J. Devisse concluded 39 years ago after
UNESCO's symposium of 18 "esteemed Arab and Euro
specialist" and 2 "presumed knucklehead negroes"
not of the "I'll take your word for it old boy" network.




Fuhgeddabowt characterizing African professors as
chronic hopped juiced on gin dumb assed homeboys
unless they agree in toto with god almighty whitey.
The white country club academia days are finished.
Credentialed Africans are recognized authorities on things
African. The era of out of hand rejecting Africans' theories
about themselves is over and not ever returning.

So enough with Obenga ad homina. Only linguistic evidence
is evidence for linguistic refutation. All dissenters must
rationally address Obenga's linguistic demonstrations against
Afrisan as posted on this thread's previous page, please.

I'm far from a linguist. Qualified African and non
African linquists present opposing cases for the
once Hamito-Semitic language family. To me they
are both possibilities. In the non-African camp
some doubt Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian
are distinct phyla and others separate at least
Semitic, if not all Afrasian, from African roots.
Lkewise African linguists have their differences
about current and proposed phylum assignments.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Obenga's primary premise is not "since whites have
Indo-European then blacks must have Negro-African."
We already established a white man Delafosse invented
the term Negro-African, pre-Obenga, way back in 1924.
[See 2nd post this page]

The Indo-European envy thing is a wilful distortion
in that the methodology establishing Indo-European
as a macrophylum is Obenga's basis:

quote:

---

The method used here is the one, in comparative linguistics,
that established Indo-European, Semitic and the other world
families of languages. The details of this method of comparison
applying to Egyptian and modern African languages have been
debated and passed in the International Cairo Colloquium.

. . . .

The goal is the reconstruction of the common ancestor, as
it has been done for Indo-European, Semitic, etc. Africanists,
who are often poor comparatists, misguide African researchers
who are methodologically weak, to erroneous methods that are
presented as logical inventions, whereas their premises are
completely false.

I have debated with the fiercest supporters of Afroasiatic and
Hamito-Semitic during colloquiums, symposiums, international
scientific meetings. I have answered some of their works in
writing. The African side always comes out victorious in these
encounters between specialists.

---

And for you who don't know, an Africanist is one whose
profession is African studies. Africanist is no code word
for pan-African ideology. Africanists were the academic
arm of colonialism. Ben-Jochannan was always harping
about white Africanists' anti-black biased ethnocentrism
like white Berbers founded Wagadu (Old Ghana) or
caucasian ancient Egypt or late external introduction
of iron to inner Africa and so on. Above you can see
Obenga distancing himself from Africanist of whom
he has a very poor opinion.

Also the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" is
referencing an authority outside their field of
study. Citing authorities in their very discipline
is never an appeal to authority, it's the way
theses are regularly supported.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Pertinent quotes from the UNESCO symposium:

I.B.6 p63


I.B.8.abc p64


I.C.5 p75



I.D pp76-7 see Conclusion screensave 2 posts above

I.E.3 p78

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
... Negro-Africaines (the larger family for Berber, Negro-Egyptian and Khoisan).

---

As explained earlier Obenga excludes Berber and
Khoisan (sic) from the Negro-Africain macrophylum.

* Couchitique
* Tchadique
* Nilo-Saharien
* Nigero-Kordofanien
are phyla of Negro-Africain while Berber is not.

This is readily ascertainable from Obenga's separate
tables of Negro-Egyptien (Table 1) and Berbere (Table 3)

Per Obenga there are
"3 African language macrophyla:
* négro-égyptien
* berbère
* khoisan"


-------------------------------------





 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
according to an un sourced statement from a wikipepdia article;


"Some scholars believe that Yemen remains the only region in the world that is exclusively Semitic, meaning that Yemen historically did not have any non–Semitic-speaking people"
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I question the accuracy of that unsourced statement since just because an area has exclusively speakers of a language for a long time does not mean no other languages existed there or that the language spoken there now has always been there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Obenga's primary premise is not "since whites have
Indo-European then blacks must have Negro-African."
We already established a white man Delafosse invented
the term Negro-African, pre-Obenga, way back in 1924.
[See 2nd post this page]

The Indo-European envy thing is a wilful distortion
in that the methodology establishing Indo-European
as a macrophylum is Obenga's basis:

quote:

---

The method used here is the one, in comparative linguistics,
that established Indo-European, Semitic and the other world
families of languages. The details of this method of comparison
applying to Egyptian and modern African languages have been
debated and passed in the International Cairo Colloquium.

. . . .

The goal is the reconstruction of the common ancestor, as
it has been done for Indo-European, Semitic, etc. Africanists,
who are often poor comparatists, misguide African researchers
who are methodologically weak, to erroneous methods that are
presented as logical inventions, whereas their premises are
completely false.

I have debated with the fiercest supporters of Afroasiatic and
Hamito-Semitic during colloquiums, symposiums, international
scientific meetings. I have answered some of their works in
writing. The African side always comes out victorious in these
encounters between specialists.

---

---

quote:

---

And for you who don't know, an Africanist is one whose
profession is African studies. Africanist is no code word
for pan-African ideology. Africanists were the academic
arm of colonialism. Ben-Jochannan was always harping
about white Africanists' anti-black biased ethnocentrism
like white Berbers founded Wagadu (Old Ghana) or
caucasian ancient Egypt or late external introduction
of iron to inner Africa and so on. Above you can see
Obenga distancing himself from Africanist of whom
he has a very poor opinion.

Also the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" is
referencing an authority outside their field of
study. Citing authorities in their very discipline
is never an appeal to authority, it's the way
theses are regularly supported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
... Negro-Africaines (the larger family for Berber, Negro-Egyptian and Khoisan).

---

As explained earlier Obenga excludes Berber and
Khoisan (sic) from the Negro-Africain macrophylum.

* Couchitique
* Tchadique
* Nilo-Saharien
* Nigero-Kordofanien
are phyla of Negro-Africain while Berber is not.

This is readily ascertainable from Obenga's separate
tables of Negro-Egyptien (Table 1) and Berbere (Table 3)

Per Obenga there are
"3 African language macrophyla:
* négro-égyptien
* berbère
* khoisan"

---

compare:


 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
What is important to understand is that languages are usually not spread by a single lineage but by populations which are usually composed of many different lineages (for example, many different SNPs, many different STR alleles). African people are the people with the greatest genetic diversity in the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What multi-disciplinary evidence is there for Negro-Egyptian? We know all pristine Afro-Asiatic speakers (including relict and at times excluded Omotic speakers) had/have a group of NRY E-M35 and mtDNA M1 sublineage carriers as their signature common ancestors, so we know they descent from the same proto-language speaking community at some point in the terminal pleistocene.

---

That's certainly a strange way to look at things. The genetic distance between people who speak languages derived from the Negro-Egyptian phylum is much shorter than between Semitic speakers and African Cushitic and Chadic speakers (that is the "Afro" branch of the debunked Afro-Asiatic language phylum). Only Berbers and Semites are closer to each other probably due to recent (7th Century Muslim conquest) or past back migration.

You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):

People who speaks the Negro-Egyptian languages are those from the labelled "Sub-Saharan African" groupings (even if many of them actually live in North Africa and the Sahara).

People who speaks the Semitic language are those from the groups labelled "North Africa" and "Arabian".

So the genetic basis for the Negro-Egyptian language phylum is solid.

quote:

---

We know all Afro-Asiatic speakers have/had specific cultural traits like henotheism in common. We know the Berber language is strongly correlated with NRY E-M81, which branches off the same Y chromosome that unites all Afrasan speakers (E-M35). We know Afrasan speakers have words for specific inventions like grindstones in common.

---

All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations. From the Somali to the Zulu passing by the Yoruba and the Beja including Ancient Egyptians of course.

Yes, E-M35 and E-M78 are ancient African haplogroups (while E-M81 is recent in Berbers and is mostly limited to them) which then spread in Africa and some neighboring places around the world. That is they are SNPs (single nucleotide events) which happened in Africa among speakers descendants of the Negro-Egyptian languages. Many of them were E-P2. E-P2 is the most dominant Y-Chromosome lineage in Africa and exists at lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe. It combined and is ancestral to both E-M2 and E-m35(E-M78).

It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.

Even more significantly:

From Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese (Hassan 2008)

The whole graph is interesting but you can note among other things that Masalit and Fur people have some of the highest frequency of E-M35 (E-M215+E-M78 on the graph). Masalit got a frequency of 72% (23/32) and the Fur got 59% (19/32). Easily some of the highest frequencies of M35 in the world!! You can also note that Masalit and Fur don't have much "foreign" haplogroup such as J. So they derive their M35 directly from the ancestral population in which the M35 mutation was birth. They are not admixed.

Obviously the fact that the Masalit and Fur are not admixed can easily be seen visually as well. They look like typical un-admixed black African people (they are Nilo-Saharans).

In comparison, Semitic speakers like Bedouins got only 10.7% of M35, Omanite 7.7%, United Emirate Arab 7.3% (taken from Table 1). Bedouins and United Emirate Arab even got 3.6% and 7.3% respectively of E(xE3b) (E excluding E3b). Pale in comparaison of the Masalit 72% of the M35 mutation.

Obviously all those haplogroups trees and analysis derived from them always changes when new samples and populations are added (even site of origin changes). A fact noted by Cruciani in the above study (see the conclusion to the introduction). At the moment they are based on too few ethnic groups and sample size. The Masalit and Fur example (ignored by Cruciani) is a prime example. Many more important ethnic groups (for population structure study) may be ignored yet as well. Hopefully this will change in the future.

quote:

---

What are such fundamental, unlikely to have been acquired by simple borrowing/liaisons, but rather, common ancestry indicating multi-disciplinary unifying traits within ''Negro-Egyptian''?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's certainly a strange way to look at things. The genetic distance between people who speak languages derived from the Negro-Egyptian phylum is much shorter than between Semitic speakers and African Cushitic and Chadic speakers (that is the "Afro" branch of the debunked Afro-Asiatic language phylum).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
genetic analysis show that they have a short genetic distance between one another (compared to Semitic and Chadic/Cushitic speakers).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
When you're trying to piece together the phylogenetic structure of an ancient proto-population (Proto-Afrasan speakers), you're not supposed to count other admixture events that postdate their split, dummy. This sounds strange to you because you're such a google scholar.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):

---

They/their data certainly don't suggest anything even remotely conducive to Obenga's propositions.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations.

---

None of this would have been specific to the proto Negro-Egyptian community. These are all either easily borrowed (don't need descent from a proto-community to explain their distribution) or they predate the time frame Obenga is talking about. Also, provide evidence that Semitic speakers and Berber speakers didn't have these traits.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.

---

All outdated information. None of this Cruciani stuff is current. Also, if you're going to reply to my posts, make sure you read the goal post. Those E-M35 y-chromosomes in non-Afrasan speaking groups are all the result of admixture events--not through common descent.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
genetic analysis show that they have a short genetic distance between one another (compared to Semitic and Chadic/Cushitic speakers).

---

See above. You're not supposed to confound post-split admixture events with genetic material that defines a proto-group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Is Obengo currently using this term "Négro-Egyptien" ?
(Eng: Negro-Egyptian)

Amun Ra how can you support the idea of Egyptians inspring Greeks

but not Eguptian inspiring semetic languages, hense "Afrasian' ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Save for a few genetic vestiges, modern day Semetic speakers in the Middle East are not genetically what proto-Semetic speakers would have been--get that through your head for once. Djehuti already tried explaining this to you. You Afronuts really have trouble with this simple piece of information, don't you? Dana also seems excessively slow when it comes to understanding this. When Semetic speakers returned to Africa 3000 years ago, what African lineages did they leave behind in the Ethiopian genepool? If they were never genetically Afrasan to begin with, what sense would it make to use their genetic distance relative to Africans, as evidence against their descent from a proto-Afrasan community?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

---

That's not what I think at all. I'm discussing the genetic evidence because Swenet brought it up, he almost challenged me to do it (since his post(s) didn't involve any linguistic arguments at all and he re-posted his "genetic" post claiming I was avoiding it), but it's the linguistic evidences from Obenga's book and some other books which is convincing me. As well as other archeological evidences and yes the genetic evidences too. While it's possible for some people to adopt a language with minimal genetic exchange, I think it's not the case here. I don't see any other historic or archeological events (or genetic events) explaining this "language colonialism" from Africa. On the Negro-Egyptian side, it's all the contrary. Most African ethnic groups descendants from the Negro-Egyptian phylum are pretty close to each other genetically. They have a short genetic distance between one another. It's just something that adds up to the linguistic and archeological evidences. All the Negro-Egyptian languages have their homeland in the same region.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Sweetie insists on genetics because he is a... geneticist...
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Sweetie insists on genetics because he is a... geneticist...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
That said, if modern Semitic people descend from a genomic and cultural substratum separate from the proto-Semitic speakers, you would think modern Semitic languages would reflect this. I mean, we would find lots of non-Afrasan words and linguistic features peppered through modern Semitic that reflect their descent from non-Afrasan peoples.

---

But isn't this the case? I'm pretty sure there is evidence for this out there. Ehret talked about it, but don't ask me where I read it.

There is also minor overlap with certain aspects of Indo-European, but as far as I know, this is attributed to interactions with Indo-Europeans rather than remnants of an earlier substrata.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 





Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.

This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.

Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:

quote:

---

Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going
back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also
reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)--
as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this
in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary
consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while
verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation.
Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points
are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of
a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation.
Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive
derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence
restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to
have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex
system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s
justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ...
explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has
now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because,
quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As
the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a
way of generating random noise.

http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/ratcliffe/comp%20&%20method-Ratcliffe.pdf

---

There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic.


Reference:

Ehret,C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic.


Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The linguistic evidence makes it clear that Romans , Greeks and other Europeans have influenced the Berbers.


Andre Basset in La Langue Berbere, has discussed the I-E elements in the Berber languages. There is also a discussion of these elements in Schuchardt, Die romanischen Lehnworter im Berberischen (Wien,1918). Basset provides a few examples in his monograph. I have posted the page so you can examine the material yourself.





You can also consult Note di geografia linguistica berbera more ,by Vermondo Brugnatelli :
http://unimib.academia.edu/VermondoBrugnatelli/Papers/1098593/Note_di_geografia_linguistica_berbera


.

.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Je me demande si les hivers lit le français??

productions lionne
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Save for a few genetic vestiges, modern day Semetic speakers in the Middle East are not genetically what proto-Semetic speakers would have been--get that through your head for once. Djehuti already tried explaining this to you. You Afronuts really have trouble with this simple piece of information, don't you? Dana also seems excessively slow when it comes to understanding this. When Semetic speakers returned to Africa 3000 years ago, what African lineages did they leave behind in the Ethiopian genepool? If they were never genetically Afrasan to begin with, what sense would it make to use their genetic distance relative to Africans, as evidence against their descent from a proto-Afrasan community?

---

Amun-Ra's confusion probably has its roots here. He assumes that linguistic relations must always reflect biological affinities, as if people couldn't adopt a language without changing their biological genomes. He cannot fathom the possibility that contemporary Semitic people could share a linguistic heritage with AEs and certain sub-Saharan Africans despite having closer biological ties to Europeans.

That said, if modern Semitic people descend from a genomic and cultural substratum separate from the proto-Semitic speakers, you would think modern Semitic languages would reflect this. I mean, we would find lots of non-Afrasan words and linguistic features peppered through modern Semitic that reflect their descent from non-Afrasan peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The linguistic evidence makes it clear that Romans , Greeks and other Europeans have influenced the Berbers.

---

quote:

---

Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.

---

quote:

---

There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic.

---

So says you-- the same man who excludes Berber as 'European' even though Berber languages are spoken exclusively in Africa, yet you include Dravidian as African even though no Dravidian tongue is to be found anywhere near Africa, not even in Southwest Asia. You are indeed the par-examplar of an Afronut.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
From http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-8478.html

Beginning with the Arab conquest of the western Maghrib in the 8th
century, Mauritania experienced a slow but constant infiltration of Arabs
and Arab influence from the north. The growing Arab presence pressed
the Berbers, who chose not to mix with other groups, to move farther
south into Mauritania, forcing out the Black inhabitants. By the 16th
century, most Blacks had been pushed to the Senegal River. Those
remaining in the north became slaves cultivating the oases.

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

according to an un sourced statement from a wikipepdia article;

"Some scholars believe that Yemen remains the only region in the world that is exclusively Semitic, meaning that Yemen historically did not have any non–Semitic-speaking people"

---

I question the accuracy of that unsourced statement since just because an area has exclusively speakers of a language for a long time does not mean no other languages existed there or that the language spoken there now has always been there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] The earliest civilization in Southwest Arabia date back to the 2nd Millenium. This culture is called the Tihama culture which originated in Africa (Fattovich, 2008).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The problem is that Amun-Ra tries to identify the DNA Tribes findings with Obenga's Negro-Egyptien when the genetic data has nothing to do with linguistic groupings

---

quote:

---

Haplogroup E-P2 (Y-DNA)

Possible time of origin 17,400 - 38,200 years BP
Possible place of origin East Africa
Defining mutations DYS391p, L337, L339, L342, L487, L492, L613, P2/PN2, P179, P180, P181

In human population genetics, haplogroups define the major lineages of direct paternal (male) lines back to a shared common ancestor in Africa. E-P2 is the most dominant Y-Chromosome lineage in Africa and exists at lower frequencies in the Middle East and Europe. The lineage is thought to have originated in or near modern day Ethiopia.

Origin

E-P2 is likely to have originated in the highlands of East Africa's Ethiopia, as this is the place with the high frequency of ancestral subclades of this haplogroup. E-P2 is the ancestor of the majority of E subclade lineages existing today. It has diverged into two subclades: E-V38 and E-M215 approximately 24-27,000 years ago (Cruciani et al. 2004).

Trombetta et al. 2011, further confirmed the previously suggested place of origin of this haplogroup by stating:

The new topology here reported has important implications as to the origins of the haplogroup E-P2. Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E-M215 trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E-P2 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested, and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa. [2]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] LOL. There is no evidence of a Qahtani civilization. This is a civilization based on oral tradition.

The Tihama civilization on the otherhand is supported by archaeological research.

The Sumerians, who were Kushites, spoke a language related to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian languages. The Akkadians entered Mesopotamia after the Kushites, just like the Semites entered (South) Arabia after the Tihama (C-Group) or Kushite people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
. The Semites probably originated in Africa and migrated into these areas.

---

quote:

---

Circular reasoning in syntheses involving multiple disciplines
has to be avoided. The criteria and methods for a given discipline
usually have to be given equal weight, and their results should be
considered independently before an effort at synthesis is made. For
example, a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family
or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on
DNA or craniofacial patterns. Likewise the place of origin of a
particular genetic variant or lineage has to be based on genetic
data, principles, and models, not on archaeological data. The locale
of origin of a particular culture or archaeological industry is subject
to analyses based on methods and theory that are specific to the relevant
disciplines. The only exception to these “rules” is if a calculated
date of origin of a genetic variant found in a given locale predates
the existence of people in that place. Although the notion of population
ties together both biology and culture broadly conceived, it cannot be
claimed that continuity in one necessarily means continuity in another.
If the question is about physical population migration, then the same
conclusion reached from every discipline independently would seem to
best support the claim (Rouse 1986). However, it cannot be said absolutely
that there was no movement if all lines of evidence do not point in the same
direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
While the exclusion of Semitic and Berber from the Negro-Egyptian phylum makes people talk. The most important results of Obenga's work (built on Homburger's work) and other people like Jean-Claude Mboli is the linguistic genetic unity of most of the current African languages.

All African languages from the Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharans, Ancient Egyptian, Cushitic and Chadic family share the same common ancestor language called Negro-Egyptian. That's the most important conclusion.

That is, for example, if you speak Yoruba, you can't be surprised to find some common words in Somali, Wolof, Zulu and Ancient Egyptian languages derived from a common ancestor language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
While the exclusion of Semitic and Berber from the Negro-Egyptian phylum makes people talk. The most important results of Obenga's work (built on Homburger's work) and other people like Jean-Claude Mboli is the linguistic genetic unity of most of the current African languages.

All African languages from the Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharans, Ancient Egyptian, Cushitic and Chadic family share the same common ancestor language called Negro-Egyptian. That's the most important conclusion.

That is, for example, if you speak Yoruba, you can't be surprised to find some common words in Somali, Wolof, Zulu and Ancient Egyptian languages derived from a common ancestor language.

---

where is the origin of Arabic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
The word tifinagh or tifinigh is widely thought to be a feminine plural cognate of Punic, through the feminine prefix ti- and Latin Punicus; thus tifinigh would mean "the Phoenician"
Proto-Berber might be as recent as 3000 BP. Louali & Philippson (2003) .


Tukuler you will find this book chapter interesting if you were not aware of it already:

Some thoughts on the Origin of the Libyco-Berber Alphabet | Robert Kerr


http://www.academia.edu/450751/Some_thoughts_on_the_Origin_of_the_Libyco-Berber_Alphabet

scroll down a bit for the English

---

The Libyco-Berber ionscriptions are found from the Fezzan to Niger Bend. The authors of this writing were the Manding speaking people who lived in these areas that's why they can not be read in the Berber language.



.



 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I use the Vai script to decipher the ancient Inscriptions from the Sahara. The Saharan inscriptions are found from the Fezzan to Dar Tichitt in Mauretania.


Delafosse 1899 (pp. 308-309)



Delafosse 1899 (pp. 310-311)


Delafosse 1899 (pp. 312-13)





The Vai characters agree with the Thinite symbols.


]

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The Egyptians also used several syllabic scripts in addition to hieroglyphics: Demotic and Hieratic.


Hieratic


Thinite

The ancient Saharans/Egyptians also wrote inscriptions in Thinite. This Thinite syllabic writing was later used to make the Libyco-Berber, Indus Valley, Proto-Sumerian, Linear Elamite , Minoan Linear A and Mande scripts such as Vai.

Here is a Libyco-Berber inscription from Oued Mertoutek


The C-Group and A-Group people and other Saharans prefered to use the syllabic scripts.

Here is a Ta-Seti inscription from Qustul




In addition to the ancient Libyco-Berber script, we see a beautiful inscription from Gebel Sheikh.






Williams (1987) and Trigger (1980) have failed to discuss the entire inscription on the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman relief. These scholars ignore the Proto-Saharan inscription, and describe only, the relief from left to right as follows: a serekh topped by a falcon looking over a victorious battlefield, sacred bark and a bound prisoner .


In reality we find more than these figures on the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription which appears to date back to the A-Group period of Nubia over 5000 years ago. This is obvious when we examine the photograph of the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman relief.From left to right on this relief we see a falcon on a serekh sign surmounting a house/ palace. In front of this village/ palace scene we see a prisoner bound by Stj bow ( the sign for the Steu).


Facing the prisoner bound by Stj bow ( the sign for the Steu). Facing the prisoner bound by the stj sign we see a bird over a circle with the letter X inside. Besides this scene we have another bird setting a top the letter X within the circle sign facing a victorious battle scene which includes a man bound to a sacred bark. Over the sacred bark we find 21 Proto-Saharan signs. These signs agree with the Egyptian pottery symbols (see figure 3).



The Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription is an obituary written about a king called Fe .As noted above Homburger found that the Manding languages are closely related to the Coptic language. Using the Manding language we can read the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription.


Reading from right to left we read:


1. i gba lu2. fe kye nde


2 1/2. ka i lu


3. fe fe tu


4. be yu su (su su) tu


5. su se lu gbe


6. po gbe tu


Below is the translation of the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription:
"1. Thou family habitation, hold (it) upright. 2. Fe's estate (is on) the shore (of the watercourse). 2 1/2. Cut thou (sepulchre) habitation for the family (here). 3. Fe preferred to be obedient to the order. 4. Lay low the (celebrity) in the large hemisphere tomb (and) offer up libations that merit upright virtue.6. Pure righteousness (is) King (Fe).


"This King Fe, of Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, may relate to Pharoah Pe-Hor (Throne of Horus) since in African languages /f/ and /p/ are often interchangeable. It is interesting to note that there is an inscription on a storage jar from Cemetery L of Qustul, Nubia that reads Pe-Hor (Williams 1987, p. 164). This Pe-Hor may be the Fe, of the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription.

Here is another inscription from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman



As you can see from the above there is more to African literacy than the picture presented by Eurocentrists.

It is evident that although hieroglyphics were very popular among Egyptians, Africans also used syllabic writing systems to express themselves.

.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Talk of coincidences, seems DJ not only had Keita
(2010)'s admonishment but also that Blench article
perculating in mind at the same time I did. MY last
post was on stuff up till Friday and I only read
later stuff Sunday evening.

I was wondering about reposting the Blench exerpts
(a lot of work) here since bumping them where they
are'd be counterproductive. He acknowledges the
Guarage lump in the imported from Arabia Ethiopian
Semitic gravy but I still haven't found any
exaustive work picking Gurage apart as to local
or import origins -- just that it is Semitic and is
an outlier to every and all other Semitic subphyla
and their further lects.


Just like Mushabian moved Levantward from Egypt
other peoples overran Daryal Gorge into Levant.
I don't know about all Semitic but biblical Hebrew
is riddled with non-Semitic lexicon.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I never knew about population genetics evidence for linguistics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
If Berbere is as Obenga proposes unconnected to
Negro-Egyptien then my guess is the Maghreb for
its birthplace. Fits in with the Atlas' domain
relative isolation from much of the continent
before the Holocene (unless its derivation's
in Eneolithic times).

K.Williams of the Afrisian school posited Berber
phylum origin in Sudan (Gharb Darfur). Where do
others place Berber's beginnings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
why do literally ALL Berber speakers have E-M81?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
From http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-8478.html

Beginning with the Arab conquest of the western Maghrib in the 8th
century, Mauritania experienced a slow but constant infiltration of Arabs
and Arab influence from the north. The growing Arab presence pressed
the Berbers, who chose not to mix with other groups, to move farther
south into Mauritania, forcing out the Black inhabitants. By the 16th
century, most Blacks had been pushed to the Senegal River. Those
remaining in the north became slaves cultivating the oases.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Talk of coincidences, seems DJ not only had Keita
(2010)'s admonishment but also that Blench article
perculating in mind at the same time I did. MY last
post was on stuff up till Friday and I only read
later stuff Sunday evening.

I was wondering about reposting the Blench exerpts
(a lot of work) here since bumping them where they
are'd be counterproductive. He acknowledges the
Guarage lump in the imported from Arabia Ethiopian
Semitic gravy but I still haven't found any
exaustive work picking Gurage apart as to local
or import origins -- just that it is Semitic and is
an outlier to every and all other Semitic subphyla
and their further lects.


Just like Mushabian moved Levantward from Egypt
other peoples overran Daryal Gorge into Levant.
I don't know about all Semitic but biblical Hebrew
is riddled with non-Semitic lexicon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass,:

---

Please explain ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Talk of coincidences, seems DJ not only had Keita
(2010)'s admonishment but also that Blench article
perculating in mind at the same time I did. MY last
post was on stuff up till Friday and I only read
later stuff Sunday evening.

I was wondering about reposting the Blench exerpts
(a lot of work) here since bumping them where they
are'd be counterproductive. He acknowledges the
Guarage lump in the imported from Arabia Ethiopian
Semitic gravy but I still haven't found any
exaustive work picking Gurage apart as to local
or import origins -- just that it is Semitic and is
an outlier to every and all other Semitic subphyla
and their further lects.


Just like Mushabian moved Levantward from Egypt
other peoples overran Daryal Gorge into Levant.
I don't know about all Semitic but biblical Hebrew
is riddled with non-Semitic lexicon.

---

As to your last paragraph above, I have read that the non-Semitic lexicon found in Hebrew as well as Aramaic is Hurrian in origin. I've even read from several sources that certain customs of Levantine folks like the status of sisters being as prominent in a man's family as his wife (echoing Sarah) and establishing covenants with deities are all Hurrian in nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass,:

eat shyt

---

• •English ……Hattic …..Egyptian…….. Malinke (Mande language)
  
  powerful ……ur………. wr'great,big' ………fara
  
  protect…….. $uh……… swh …………………solo-
  
  head …………tup ………tp ……………tu 'strike the head'
  
  up,upper….. tufa ………..tp……………… dya, tu 'raising ground'
  
  to stretch put… pd ………pe,……………….. bamba
  
  o prosper …….falfat …..-- …………………..find'ya
  
  pour ……………duq …….---………………….. du 'to dispense'
  
  child …………..pin………,pinu………………… den
  
  
  Mother ………..na-a ………--…………………….. na
  
  lord …………….sa ………..--………………………. sa
  
  place ………….-ka………… -ka

• Dravidian Hurrian
  
  a a
  
  -kku -ikka
  
  imbu impu
  
  
  
  There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:
  
  
  
  English Hurrian Dravidian
  
  mountain paba parampu
  
  lady,woman aallay ali
  
  King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira
  
  god en en
  
  give tan tara
  
  to rule irn ire
  
  father attai attan
  
  wife,woman asti atti

• Hurrian Sanskrit
  
  Mi-it-va Mitra
  
  Aru-na Varuna
  
  In-da-ra Indra
  
  Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

• English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil
  
  One aika eka okka ‘together’
  
  Three tera tri
  
  Five panza panca añcu
  
  Seven satta sapta
  
  Nine na nava onpatu
  
  
  
  Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:
  
  
  
  English Hurrian I-A Tamil
  
  Brown babru babhru pukar
  
  Grey parita palita paraitu ‘old’
  
  Reddish pinkara pingala puuval
  
  
  
  English Mitanni Vedic Tamil
  
  Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

References:

Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


.


The anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that East Indian people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.Dravidian languages belong to the Niger-Congo family.

In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10
(1976, pp.23-27:24. ).

Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26

can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote
_________________________________________________________________
Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9).
________________________________________________________________________


B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.


B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .


Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).

There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1
) .

There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .


There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).

Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.

Linguistic Evidence

1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.

1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.

1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians

1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.

1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.

1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.)
_________________________________________________________________

code:

---

COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS

ENGLISH    DRAVIDIAN      SENEGALESE        MANDING
MOTHER        AMMA          AMA,MEEN          MA
FATHER    APPAN,ABBA       AMPA,BAABA         BA
PREGNANCY   BASARU          BIIR              BARA
SKIN          URI          NGURU,GURI         GURU
BLOOD       NETTARU         DERET             DYERI
KING       MANNAN          MAANSA,OMAAD        MANSA
GRAND      BIIRA           BUUR                BA
SALIVA     TUPPAL          TUUDDE              TU
CULTIVATE  BEY            ,MBEY            BE
BOAT       KULAM           GAAL                KULU
FEATHER    SOOGE           SIIGE               SI, SIGI
MOUNTAIN    KUNRU          TUUD                KURU
ROCK       KALLU           XEER                KULU
STREAM     KOLLI           KAL                 KOLI

---

code:

---

English                Senegalese            Dravidian
body                   W. yaram                 uru
head                   D. fuko,xoox              kukk
hair                   W. kawar                 kavaram 'shoot'
eye                    D. kil                   kan, khan
mouth                  D. butum                 baayi, vaay
lip                    W. tun,F. tondu          tuti
heart                  W. xol,S. xoor           karalu
pup                    W. kuti                  kutti
sheep                  W. xar                   'ram'
cow                    W. nag                   naku
hoe                    W. konki                
bronze                 W. xanjar                xancara
blacksmith             W. kamara               
skin                      dol                   tool
mother                 W. yaay                   aayi
child                  D. kunil                  kunnu, kuuci
ghee                     o-new                   ney

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Hurrian was not an Indo-European language..
.

---

Who said it was??

I'm not even going to bother addressing your other claims which are nonsense.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
If Berbere is as Obenga proposes unconnected to
Negro-Egyptien then my guess is the Maghreb for
its birthplace. Fits in with the Atlas' domain
relative isolation from much of the continent
before the Holocene (unless its derivation's
in Eneolithic times).

---

Outside of the linguistic evidence out there, this is why I refuse to even entertain Obenga. What you just said is the only scenario that would make his exclusion of Berber work, and its so weak that it leaves me scratching my head.

If anyone wondered why, THIS is why I'm not wasting my time researching the merits of a linguistic theory that is at odds with literally all the data out there.

How can Berbers have Berber specific Y-chromosomes that diverged off of Afrasan signature Y chromosomes >4ky ago, speak languages that diverged around the same time, but yet, the unique-to-Berber language family is supposed to be uncorrelated to the >4ky old unique-to-Berbers uniparentals (E-M81 and E-V65)?

If the Berber tongue originated with pre-existing stone age populations in the Magreb, why do literally ALL Berber speakers have E-M81? Did East Africans manage to find them all one one by one, and cause this y chromosome to become dominant as many times as there are Berber speakers with domninant E-M81 y chromosomes? If it was passed on to them by their predecessors in the Maghreb, why do the most ancient branches of this family originate in the North East (e.g., Tuareg, Awdjilah), consistent with Afrasan?

This is one of those theories that you know must have been penned down/revived by someone who was cut off from relevant research, because nothing independantly corroborates it. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
^It seems to me to be the case that most Cushitic speakers formed late (their signature lineage, NRY E-M78 [E-V32], was introduced to the Somali population ~4-5kya), this post dates the proposed proto Niger Congo presence in Eastern Africa, since Niger Congo speaking agriculturalists were already present in West Africa by then. This may explain why Cushitic speakers may have little E-M2 and cannot be used to gauge E-M2 in at least some of the earliest Afrasans. The earliest E-M78 in Northern Africa (E-V68), which dates to ~18kya, is old enough for some Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan branches to have interacted with early Niger-Congo speakers. The Kordofan region or somewhere close would be a good candidate region for this scenario due to the presence of languages related to Niger Congo in the region. The drawback is that Kordofanian populations carry little E-M2, if the Nuba are any indication. Wherever it occurred, these E-M2 admixed Nilo-Saharan speakers and Afro-Asiatic speakers could then have met again along the Nile after the wet Saharan phase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL Such conjectures again shows just how invalid the Negro-Egyptien phylum

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
What exactly are "Afrasan signature Y chromosomes"
and where can I learn more about them as well as
other genetic linguistic signatures you mentioned
previously like for Cushitic?

---

quote:

---

We observe the highest proportion of the “Nilo-Saharan AAC” in the southern/central Sudanese populations (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk,
Nyimang), with decreasing frequency from northern Kenya (e.g. Pokot) to northern Tanzania (Datog, Maasai). From K = 5-13, all Nilo-Saharan speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad cluster with west-central Afroasiatic Chadic speaking populations (Fig. S13). These results are consistent with linguistic and archeological data, suggesting a possible common ancestry of Nilo-Saharan speaking populations from an eastern Sudanese homeland within the past ~10,500 years, with subsequent bi-directional migration westward to Lake Chad and southward into modern day southern Sudan, and more recent migration eastward into Kenya and Tanzania ~3,000 ya (giving rise to Southern Nilotic speakers) and westward into Chad ~2,500 ya (giving rise to Central Sudanic speakers)( S57, S60, S62, S69). A proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7,000 ya from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have caused many western Nilo-Saharans to shift to Chadic languages (S 91). Our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by significant Afroasiatic gene flow. 14 Analyses of mtDNA provide evidence for divergence ~8,000 ya of a distinct mtDNA lineage present at high frequency in the Chadic populations and suggest an East African origin for most mtDNA lineages in these populations (S92).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Only linguistic evidence can disconfirm Obenga.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


[QUOTE] all Nilo-Saharan speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad cluster with west-central Afroasiatic Chadic speaking populations (Fig. S13).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


Obenga can be discarded for the simple fact alone that it is impossible for all these populations/linguistic units (Nilo-Saharan, Afrasan, Niger Congo) to split off in the terminal pleistocene (if I'm not misunderstanding Amun). Obenga supporters will run into so many problems defending this supposedly >10kya phylum, that they might as well just say upfront say that they're throwing all the multi-disciplinary data that informs African Anthropology in the wind, that in some way shape or form implies coalescence ages larger than >10kya coalescence dates for the populations included within Negro-Egyptien (which is basically all multi-disciplinary data). Even if I'm misunderstanding Amun where the age of Negro-Egyptian is concerned (i.e., that Obenga's proposition for this clade is older), its a known fact that modern linguistic phyla don't go back much further than the Terminal Pleistocene. Its a wrap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
The last underscores to your post make me recall
the primary importance of women in Kel Tamasheq
(Tuareg) language and literature. Tifinagh is a
woman's thing mostly for poetry and correspondance. So I expect U6 weight more so than E-M81 for the Berber phyla.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
U6 is paleolithic in Maghreb al Aqsa
with U6b'c nearly limited to the Maghreb while U6a
and derivatives show up as far afield as Kenya.
Could prehistoric Magreb al Aqsa women diagonally
cross to East Africa and later return to the Maghreb carrying U6a1 and E-M81 mates whom they taught their Obenga proposed non-Afrisian Berber?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted November, 2006 by alTakruri:
Genetic conclusion are drawn from living populations.
High frequency African specific lineage relevant DNA
in TaMazgha is mtDNA U6 and NRY E3b-M35.


U6a has a coalescence ranging between 41-14kya per HVSI sequences.
It has a west to east expansion making it a strong candidate for an
Aterian female base.

U6a1 (19-7.5kya) with an east to west expansion is at the tail end
of the Aterian, all throughout the Mouillian, and most likely signals
the Capsian which arose first in East Africa though named after Gafsa,
the site in North Africa where archaeologist first dug up relics of the
industry. This is a time period of proto-Afrisan and proto-NiloSaharan.
A language ancestral to both (namely proto-Wider Area Of Northern
Affinity) may have been carried from east to north Africa.

The other U6 subgroups (U6b, U6c, and U6b1) occur almost exclusively in
western populations and by HVSI coalescence dating would appear during
all the pleistocene industries. The exception being U6b1 which is strictly
holocene while U6c's coalescence covers both the late pleistocene and
early holocene. On their return to the U6a birthplace, U6a1 would encounter
the already in place older U6b and U6c indigenous to that region.


E3b-M35 has a coalescence ranging between 46-27kya per average squared
difference. It probably originated in eastern Africa. Highest frequencies are
in the "Khoisan" and Oromo. It could be the male base of the Aterian that
was later absorbed and displaced.

E3b1-M78 (33-25kya), derived from E3b-M35, also most likely arose in
eastern Africa and fits the Aterian time frame. By late expansion, it may
also signal the Mouillian which is known to be related to the Halfan
industry in the Nile Valley. It has high frequencies in Ethiopia, Sudan,
and Kenya.

E3b2-M81 (11-6kya), also an E3b-M35 derivative, likewise first appeared
in eastern Africa. It's more in line with the Capsian and Neolithic Saharan.
The first Wider Area of Northern Affinity languages was at this
particularly proto-NiloSaharan. Afrisan had begun splitting so that by the
lower limit proto-Tamazight was born. Certain languages in the Wider
Area of Southern Affinity may have started in the Sahara along with
languages not truly fitting any strict classification system. This
subclade is considered to be the Amazigh marker.

code:

---

INDUSTRY          MORPHOLOGY                PREDOMINANT MARKERS
                                            mtDNA     NRY
                                                               
                                                                
ATERIAN           "Boskopoid"?              *U6a*     *E3b-M35*              
                                                      ?E3b1-M78?
                                                                 
MOUILLIAN         "PaleaMediterranean"       U6a       E3b-M35  
                                             U6b      *E3b1-M78*
                                             U6c                
                                            *U6a1*               
                                                                
CAPSIAN/ORANIAN   "AfricanMediterranean"     U6a       E3b-M35
                  "African Alpine"           U6b       E3b1-M78
                                             U6c      ?E3b2-M81?
                                             U6a1       
                                            *U6b1*                 
                                                                  
NEOLITHIC SAHARAN  meld of the above        as above   as above 
                   Saharo-Sudanese                    *E3b-M81*            

---

.


The Aterian was highly concentrated in the Atlas but had an outreach that
included the Sahara and Libya. Its practioners may've resembled "Khoisan".
Archaeological finds show the Mouillian "PaleaMediterraneans" occupied the
littoral from Libya to Morocco. Oranian finds are also scattered over this
same whole area. Capsian "AfricanMediterranean" relics are all inland away
from the coast. The Neolithic Sahara industry of the Saharo-Sudanese replaced
the earlier industry but not the morphologies. Apparently only a few pioneer
Saharo-Sudanese ventured toward the coast introducing technologies similar
to the so-called Khartoum "Mesolithic". The neolithic transfer was moreso
cultural than demic. All of these Maghrebi industries and NRY haplogroups
show links with the Nile Valley. The mtDNA haplogroups mostly suggest
local Maghreb al Aqsa continuities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
From http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-8478.html

Beginning with the Arab conquest of the western Maghrib in the 8th
century, Mauritania experienced a slow but constant infiltration of Arabs
and Arab influence from the north. The growing Arab presence pressed
the Berbers, who chose not to mix with other groups, to move farther
south into Mauritania, forcing out the Black inhabitants. By the 16th
century, most Blacks had been pushed to the Senegal River. Those
remaining in the north became slaves cultivating the oases.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

One of the problem is that you're only concentrating on the fact that the Negro-Egyptian phylum doesn't include Berber or Semitic. But the most important aspect of Obenga's study is that it includes almost all E and E-P2 carriers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I didn't know the Berber branch only goes back to
2000 BCE. What did all the north coastal people
Sirte and further west speak? Did all those
populations undergo language shift since the
Maghreb proper mtDNA evinces trans-Holocene
continuity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

One of the problem is that you're only concentrating on the fact that the Negro-Egyptian phylum doesn't include Berber or Semitic. But the most important aspect of Obenga's study is that it includes almost all E and E-P2 carriers.

---

Yet is Obenga's phylum a linguistic one or a genetic one? It seems to be the former yet you keep identifying it with the latter. Why is that??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You must be joking. When Swenet do it, it's a signature and you're happy when I show the likely Negro-Egyptian signatures you're not happy. As I just said, geneticists just confirm genetically what Obenga found out linguistically. It's just a good thing that multidisciplinary approach also confirms Obenga's analysis. You're too much concentrating on the fact that Berber and Semitic languages are not included in the phylum (only one chapter in Obenga's works and a few mentions elsewhere is devoted to the subject). The real important aspect of Obenga's works, inspired by Homburger, is the fact that most major African language families are descended from the same ancestral language spoken somewhere in the region of Sudan/Ethiopia and East Africa a long time ago.

---

• Afrocentric Comparative and Historical Linguistic Methods
  
  In this paper we explore the linguistic methods used by Afrocentric linguists to document the relationship between Black African languages and their sister languages in Africa and Asia.
  
  
  
  By
  
  Clyde A. Winters
  
  
  
  Abstract
  
  In this paper the author reviews the authentic historical and linguistic methods traditionally employed by Afrocentrists. We learn that Africalogical research has long been researched by Afrocentric scholars; and that up until the 1930's the history of African civilizations and people was the "preserve" of Afrocentric scholars .
  
  
  
  There are two schools of Africalogical research: the African-American school (AAS) of Afrocentric research (Dubois, 1915, 1946) , and the French-speaking African and Afro-Caribbean school (FAACS) of Afrocentricity (Diop, 1974). The AAS was concerned with historical research while the FAACS has made linguistic research their domain of intellectual inquiry. A third school of Afrocentric researchers we will call pluridiscipli-narians led by Anselin (1982,1993) and Winters (1985, 1989,1994) combine both historical and linguistic methods to explain the heritage of African people.
  
  An Afrocentric view of African history is written from the perspective of the Africans themselves. This type of writing on African history is centered on the role of Blacks/ Africans in Africa, and the fact that there was, and is a history of Africa.
  
  The central element in all Afrocentric research is the fact that ancient Kemet (or Egypt) was a Black African civilization. As a result of this theoretical base, most of the arguments made by contemporary Afrocentrists including the :
  
  (1) African origin of Egypt (Delany, 1879); and
  
  (2) African origin of civilizations in Europe and
  
  Asia (Johnson, 1971 pp.388-389; Dubois, 1946 p.122)
  
  were first made over a hundred (100) years ago by members of the AAS Afrocentrist group.
  
  Eurocentric School
  
  The major spokesman for the Eurocentric view of African history is Dinesh D'Souza (1995). Mr. D'Souza, a non-historian, linguist, etc., has made his mission in life the destruction of Multiculturalism, and Afrocentricism in particular, additions to the curriculum of American schools. D'Souza (1995 p. 360) believes that "...Afrocentrism fundamentally remains a pedagogy an initiation into a new form of black consciousness and also into manhood". Given this Eurocentric view of Africalogy, D'Souza (1995) sets out to prove that slavery was not racist; that segregation was established by paternal whites to protect the former slaves; and especially that "Egypt was a multiracial society" (p. 367) dominated by white skinned Egyptians, and that the only time that Blacks/Africans ruled Egypt, was during the Nubian dynasty (p. 368).
  
  African-American School
  
  The AFROCENTRIC historical method was developed over a hundred years ago. African-American researchers, including R. B. Lewis, Light and Truth, collected from the Bible and the ancient and modern history, containing the universal history of the Colored and Indian race from creation of the world to the present (Boston 1844); George W. Williams, History of the Negro race in America from 1619 to 1880...and an Historical sketch of Africa (New York 1982) and Rufus L. Perry, The Cushite or descendants of Ham (Springfield, Mass. 1893) used these methods to present a realistic picture of the African past.
  
  As you can see from the above titles most of these early works were based on material found in the Bible. According to the Bible, Blacks are the descendants of Ham who had four sons: Kush, Mizraim (Egypt/Kemet), Phut (Punt) and Canaan. these sons represent founders of the first world civilizations, such as Sumer, Phonecia, Arabia and Hatti. This recognition of the African origin of civilization in Africa and Mesopotamia was soon confirmed by the archaeological discovery of Sumer and Egypt.
  
  The AAS Afrocentrists developed a systematic group of principles for critically examining and presenting the body of source material related to the history of African people. Scholars such as W.E.B. DuBois, J.A. Rogers and Carter G. Woodson honed the AFROCENTRIC historical method to fine a edge. Woodson and DuBois made sure to employ the historical method in their careful research into the African past. And Rogers was a master of many languages which he used to gain insight into the history of African people from the numerous European sources he used to write the multivolume series Sex and Race.
  
  Knowledge about African people, especially the ancient history, has been hard to come by, because much of the "authentic" history of African people has often been published in non-English sources. This has meant that Afrocentric historians recognized the term document to include both written accounts about things said and done in the past, and also archaeological records. This broad interpretation of document has meant that these historians have been concerned with primary documents produced by eyewitnesses (e.g., the classicists of Greece and Rome) and also secondary sources related to archaeological research and the classical literature.
  
  The AAS Afrocentrists have mainly been concerned with the history of African people, in Africa and the world. It was the African American scholars who dominated the field of African historiography from the nineteenth century up into the 1930's (Dubois ,1971 p. 373).
  
  The founders of the Afrocentric schools of research have been careful to use many primary sources. These sources were written by the major classical authors (Johnson 1971) : Homer (DuBois, 1946; Diop 1974), Herodotus (DuBois, 1946 p.121; Diop 1974) and Diodorus Siculus (DuBois 1946, p.122; Diop 1974), and long ago were authenticated and are recognized as credible.
  
  The writings of the classicists have been important in establishing a foundation for the claims of the Afrocentrists because they have temporal proximity to many important events in the history of African people. Moreover, although the documents of the classicists were often biased, they report in clear prose the African role in the rise of civilization and culture in Africa and Asia and give internal credibility to their statements about African people.
  
  The major African American Afrocentrist such as J.A. Rogers, and W.E.B. DuBois have usually been able to read one or more foreign languages. There has been a need for learning a foreign language by members of the AAS because much of the literature dealing with African and Black civilizations has been written in French , Greek and German rather than English. Moreover, familiarity with a foreign language allows the Afrocentrist to check carefully all translations to insure that the documents they use in their research has internal credibility.
  
  Afrocentrists have traditionally been immensely concerned with contemporary archaeological finds related to African people. This emphasis on archaeological research is evident in the work of DuBois (1915,1946), and Woodson (1936,1949).
  
  The major secondary sources used by the early Afrocentrists include the work of Johnston (1910), Frobenius (1913), Boas (1911), Arnold L. von Heeren and Volney. DuBois (1915, p.147)notes that although many of these sources were used "none of these authors write from the point of view of the Negro as a man, or with anything but incidental acknowledgement of the existence or value of history".
  
  The first trained historian-sociologist to examine the African past was Dr. W.E.B. DuBois. In 1915, Dr. DuBois published the little book called The Negro. This book served as inspiration for many later AFROCENTRIC historians. This book, as obvious from the title, was concerned with the African both at home and abroad. The Negro, opened the field of AFROCENTRIC historiography. In this book DuBois collected the most recent materials on African affairs up to 1915, and presented a comprehensive whole, of the different elements of African history.
  
  In 1946, DuBois published The World and Africa. The World and Africa, was an important book in AFROCENTRIC research because in it DuBois outlined a world history on the Black races. In this book DuBois (1946, pp. ix-xi) makes it clear that he admired the work of many of his contemporaries such as J.A. Rogers and Hansberry, authors who had began their quest to discover the African past after reading The Negro.
  
  DuBois (1946) used up-to-date references to prove his thesis that Blacks founded civilization in Kemet (Egypt , pp.98-100), Africa and Arabia (pp.176-194). His discussion of the raise of Kemet and the importance of the Nubians and Thebaid group of upper Kemet in maintaining Egyptian traditions (DuBois 1946, pp. 104-108) is very well written. In addition, many scholars look to Bernal (1987, 1991) as the premier text on the falsification of Black history due to slavery and Eurocentricism, but in The World and Africa, DuBois pointed out clearly the role of European slavery and greed as the main motivating factors for the lack of truth in writing African history (DuBois, 1946 p.80).
  
  As a result of The Negro and The World and Africa, DuBois left a great deal of material that stimulated many Black scholars who read them, to become interested in the history of the African/Black race.
  
  In our opinion an influential pioneer historian and anthropologist researching the African past was Joel A. Rogers. James Spady has observed that Rogers' research encompasses three major areas: (1) the antiquity of Blacks; (2) how, when and why races mix; and (3) inspirational and biographical sources of great Black men and women. Rogers' research has deeply influenced all of my research.
  
  Rogers made it clear that Afrocentrists must (1) visit European museums where many artifacts of Africa which were stolen are now housed; (2) learn to speak and read more than one European language, so ; (3) the scholar should seek primary documents which must be reinterpreted to present the truth to the world. The greatest books written by Rogers include the best selling 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro, which gave the reader over 100 facts about the history of African people; and especially Sex and Race, a three volume series of books which discuss the world history of Blacks from ancient times to our modern age.
  
  Another AAS historian was Drusilla D. Houston of the state of Oklahoma. Houston's major work was the book Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire. In this book she shows that the civilizations of southern Arabia, Greece, India and Persia were founded by Africans from the Nile Valley and beyond. Houston had hoped to write another volume of this book but she died before it was completed.
  
  The fourth most important AAS africalogists after DuBois, Houston and Rogers was Leo Hansberry. Hansberry was born in 1894, and was the first historian to teach African studies at a major University in the world. Dr. Hansberry became interested in African history after reading DuBois'The Negro. this book led Hansberry to decide to learn more about Kush and ancient Ethiopia.
  
  In 1922, Hansberry went to Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he taught courses in African history. He never received proper support from the University, but he did influence many African-American and African scholars who studied under him. Professor Hansberry died in Chicago on November 3, 1965.
  
  Carter G. Woodson (1936,1949) following DuBois (1915) legitimized the writing of African history. In his premier books on Africa, Woodson (1936, 1949) illuminated the civilizations of Africa, and the rich cultural heritage of African people. Woodson is also credited with founding the Journal of Negro History, which published numerous articles on African history.
  
  John J. Jackson, was a self-trained anthropologist. He taught at universities on the eastcoast and in the midwest, including the Northeastern Illinois Center for Inner City Studies in Chicago, now called the Kemetic Institute.
  
  Jackson's most popular book is Introduction to African Civilization. In this book Jackson used old and new sources to discuss the role of Blacks in civilizations around the world. In his book he makes it clear that Africa and her people are the founders of world civilization.
  
  Jackson presents striking evidence that Indo-Europeans have played a major role in the destruction of African centers of civilization. He cites for example, the Romans partial destruction of the library of Alexander, and its later total destruction by fanatical Christians in A.D. 389. Prof. Jackson also discussed the Romans burned down the library of Carthage which contained 50,000 volumes in 146 B.C. And in Spain, Europeans destroyed great libraries of the Moors.
  
  By the 1960's Africalogical historical research, formerly the "preserve" of African Americans (DuBois, 1971 p.373), was beginning to be dominated by Europeans. The only AFROCENTRIC historian to come on the scene during this period was Dr. Joseph Ben-Jochannan.
  
  Ben-Jochannan is an historian and cultural-anthropologist. His major works are Black Man on the Nile, African Origin of the Major Western Religions, and Africa: Mother of western civilization. In these books Ben-Jochannan provides the reader with a wealth of information on the African origin of Egypt, and the African influence on many common civilizing elements found in Western societies today.
  
  French Speaking Afrocentrists
  
  Most of the contemporary dynamic historians and anthropolo-gists writing from the AFROCENTRIC perspective and making important original contributions to Africalogical research in Africa and the Caribbean speak French. These scholars were heavily influenced by the work of Diop.
  
  The FAACS Afrocentrists have their roots in Negritude. Aime Cesaire (1956) originated the term Negritude, which is a cultural expression of "Blackness". In a poem written during World War II, Cesaire coined the phrase "African personality". It is the idea of an original and unique personality peculiar to Africans, that manifest the foundation Afrocentrism in the African diaspora where French is spoken.
  
  Leopold Senghor of Senegal became a major proponent of Negritude. Senghor argued that the African emotional quality to life is different from the materialism of Europeans.
  
  Leopold Senghor not only accepted the idea of an "African Personality", he also helped develop the idea of "Africanity". Africanity is a word which relates to the entire African continent's cultural heritage (Fanon, 1967; Loventhal, 1972).
  
  Negritude has usually been described as "passive" by many social critics (Loventhal, 1972 p.283; Fanon, 1967 p.45). But one of the followers of this movement, Chiekh Anta Diop used the idea of "Africanity" to add a historical research component to negritude, that explained and discussed the African origin of Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization. Diop (1974, 1981) proved the African origin of Egyptian civilization and made it a major component of negritude.
  
  Diop established an important base of Africalogical research at the University of Senegal. Until Diop died in 1986, he was a major advocate of the continuity of African history from Egypt to the medieval African civilizations. He is one of the founders of the African Historical Science and Philosophy of history first practiced by DuBois and Rogers. Like J.A. Rogers, Diop called for scholars to stop dabbling here and there, and become well trained , pluridisciplinary specialists.
  
  Chiekh Anta Diop has made important contributions to linguistic theory in relation to African historiography. Diop's work illustrates that it is important for scholars to maintain a focus on the historical and linguistic factors which define the "personnalitè culturelle africaine" (Diop 1991, 227).
  
  Language is the sanctum sanctorum of Diop's Afrocentric historical method. The Diopian view of historiography combines the research of linguistics, history and psychology to interpret the cultural unity of African people.
  
  There are three components in the genetic model: 1) common physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages. (Winters 1989a) Diop over the years has brought to bear all three of these components in his illumination of Kemetic civilization (Diop 1974,1977,1978,1991).
  
  Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered (Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991).
  
  In the recovery of information concerning the African past, Diop promotes semantic anthropology, comparative linguistics and the study of Onomastics (Diagne 1981). Onomastics is the science of names (Diagne 1981). Diop has studied legends, placenames and religious cult terms to discover the unity of African civilization. The main thesis of Diop is that typonymy and ethnonymy of Africa point to a common cradle for Paleo-Africans in the Nile Valley (Diop, 1978, 67).
  
  In Precolonial Black Africa, Diop used ethnonyms to chart the migrations of African people in West Africa. And in The African Origin of Civilization, Diop used "analyses acculturaliste" or typological analysis to study the origin and spread of African cultural features from the Nile Valley to West Africa through his examination of toponyms (Diop 1974, 182-183). In the Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Diop discussed the common totems and religious terms many African ethnic groups share (Diop 1978, 124).
  
  This linguistic research has been based on linguistic classification or taxonomy. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based (Ruhlen 1994). Linguistic taxonomy is necessary for the identification of language families. The determination of language families give us the material to reconstruct the proto-language of a people and discover regular sound correspondences( Hock 1988; Crawley 1992; Bynon 1978; Lord 1966; Robins 1974).
  
  Diop is a strong supporter of the comparative linguistic method in the rediscovery of Paleo-African. The reconstruction of Paleo-African involves both reconstruction and recognition of regular sound correspondence. The goal of reconstruction is the discovery of the Proto-language of African people is the recovery of Paleo-African. To reconstruct a Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences.
  
  Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of genetically related languages.
  
  LINGUISTIC CONSTANCY
  
  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, 1988, 1992a, 1992b, 1993,).
  
  The political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa (Winters 1994). Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language Diop, 1987, 1991; Niane, 1984).
  
  The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since neolithic times (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985; Anselin 1992a, 1992b). This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.
  
  This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the continuity or stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:
  
  First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time (pp.153-154).
  
  In Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes, Diop wrote that:
  
  The permanence of these forms not only, constitute today a solid base...upon which...[we are to re-]construct diachronic African [languages], but obliges also a radical revision of these ideas, a priori...on the evolution of these languages in general (p.17).
  
  There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used Glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms.
  
  Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself (Labov 1965, 1972). Meillet (1926, p. 17) wrote that:
  
  Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.
  
  Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages.
  
  Diop's major linguistic effort has been the classification of Black African and Egyptian languages . Up until 1977 Diop's major area of interest were morphological and phonological similarities between Egyptian and Black African languages. Diop (1977, 77-84) explains many of his sound laws for the Egyptian-Black African connection. These sound laws have been further elaborated by Anselin (1989, 1992, 1993) and Obenga (1988, 1993b).
  
  Diop has noted that the reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about an ethnic group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologists make precise inferences about a linguistic group's cultural elements. In Obenga (1988) the Paleo-African terms for cattle, goat, sheep, rams and the monkey were reconstructed.
  
  Diop has contributed much to the extra-African linguistic relationship. He was a major proponent of the Dravidian-African relationship (Diop 1974, 116), and he illustrated the African substratum in Indo-European languages in relationship to cacuminal sounds and terms for social organiza-tion and culture (1974, 115). Diop (1978, 113) also recognized that in relation to Arabic words, after the suppression of the first consonant, there is often an African root. This is not surprising because Edward Blyden found evidence that the Arabic writing system was created by an African from the modern country we call Egypt.
  
  The major student of Diop is Obenga (1974, 1978,1995). Th. Obenga is a linguist and historian. He has done remarkable work in the reconstruction of Paleo-African and a brilliant study of the philosophical views of the Egyptians.
  
  Formerly the major work of Obenga was L'Afrique dans l'Antiquitie . In this book Th. Obenga discussed the African origin of Egypt and the cultural and linguistic unity of Blacks world wide.
  
  Obenga (1978a, 1978b, 1988) has shown the unity of ancient and modern African languages and the close relationship of ancient Egyptian to his own language Mbochi. And in The Peopling od ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of the Meroitic script, Obenga and Diop give a superb discussion of the reality of an African origin of Egyptian civilization.
  
  Obenga (1978b, 1988) concentrate on two areas of linguistic research. Firstly, he has shown striking affinities between Egyptian and Mbochi. Secondly, Obenga (1988, 1993) has been concerned with the reconstruction of Paleo-African and the shared grammatical features of Egyptian and Black African languages.
  
  In 1993, Obenga published Origine commune de l'Egyptien ancien du copte et des langues Negro Africaines modernes. This book provides a detailed discussion of the historical links between African and Egyptian languages. In Obenga (1993) African languages are divided into three Superfamilies the Black African-Egyptian , the Berber and the Khoisan languages.
  
  Obenga maintains that the Egyptian-Black African family is classified into the following subfamilies: Egyptian, Cushitic, Tchadian, Nilo-Saharan and the Niger-Kordofanian families. Most of these subfamilies of Egyptian-Black African were first grouped by Greenberg (1963).
  
  Obenga (1993) in addition to providing a detailed account of the Egyptian-Black African genetic connections also provides keen insight into the so called Afro-Asiatic family of language.
  
  He proves that the Egyptian language is closer to African languages than the non-African languages grouped in the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Recently, this theme was also taken up by Tounkara (1989), he explained how Diop's theory of an Egyptian-Black African language connection has more linguistic and historical support than the Afro-Asiatic hypothesis.
  
  Gilbert Ngom (1986) has done a fine examination of the correspondence between the Bantu, Duala and the ancient Egyptian language. Ngom (1986) elaborates on the Black African-Egyptian phonology. He also makes it clear that Egyptian is closer to the Black African languages, than the Berber and Semitic languages in syntax, morphology and phonology (Ngom, 1986 pp.48-52). Anselin (1989, 1993) provide an outstanding discussion of the affinity between the Egyptian and Black African verbal systems.
  
  The most interesting research inspired by Diop is in the area of semantic anthropology. Using linguistic data Anselin ( 1989, 1992, 1993) and Pfouma (1987) have compared Black African and Egyptian terms to illuminate the common royal heritage and religion shared by Blacks. Winters (1985a, 1985d, 1989, 1991) also used this method to confirm the unity between the African, the Dravidian, the Elamite and the Sumerian languages.
  
  Dr. Diop has called on Africalogical researchers to become pluridisciplinarians. A pluridisciplinary specialist is a person who is qualified to use more than one discipline, for example history, linguistics and etc., when researching aspects of African history and Africalogy in general. Two major Afrocentric pluridisciplinarians are Alain Anselin (1993) and Clyde Ahmad Winters (1989, 1994).
  
  Anselin is an AFROCENTRIC pluridisciplinarian researcher. Anselin is the Director of Studies at the Laboratory of Research the A.M.E.P., at Fort-de-France Martinique. He has written three important AFROCENTRIC works: La Question Peule, Le Mythe d'Europe, and Samba and numerous articles.
  
  In Samba, Alain Anselin illustrates how the corpus of Egyptian hieroglyphics explains not only the Egyptian civilization, but also the entire world of the Paleo-Africans. In this book following Winters (1985, 1991) he makes it clear that Kemetic civilization originated in the Fertile African Crescent (Anselin, 1992 pp.20-22). And that Black African and Kemetic civilization at its origination was unified from its foundations in the Sahara, up to its contemporary manifestations in the language and culture of Black Africans.
  
  In La Question Peule, Anselin again moves back to his theme of unity for Egyptian, West African and Dravidian languages, political traditions and culture. The unity between Dravidian and African cultures was also examined by Th. Obenga (1973), Anta Diop (1974), Cheikh Tidiane N'Diaye and Winters (1980a, 1985c, 1985d, 1986c, 1991a).
  
  Anselin (1982, p.190) provides a detailed discussion of the " Black Ageans". There is also a fine examination of the affinities between the Agean and Dravidian civilizations (Anselin , 1982 pp.135-149).
  
  Another pluridisiciplinarian Afrocentrist is Clyde Ahmad Winters. He is the only African-American attempting to confirm the theories of Diop in relation to the genetic unity of the Egyptian , Black African , Elamite, Sumerian and Dravidian languages. Winters' is mainly concerned with the unity of ancient old and new world Black civilizations (Winters 1985a,1985d, 1989) and decipherment of ancient Black writing systems used by these Africans (Winters 1985b). This led Winters to learn many foreign languages including French, Tamil , Malinke/Bambara, Chinese , Arabic, Otomi and more.
  
  Winters has used Diop's genetic model in his research which combines anthropological , linguistic and historical methods to confirm that the center for the rise of the originators of the Egyptian and Manding civilizations (1977, 1979b, 1986a, 1986f, 1983), the Magyar or Hungarian civilization (1984a, 1986e); the Dravidian civilization (1980a, 1981d, 1985c, 1985d 1986c, 1986d, 1986e, 1988a, 1989b) and the Sumerian and Elamite civilizations was the Fertile African Crescent of the highland regions of Middle/Saharan Africa (1984, 1985a, 1991, 1994). In addition he has explained how Blacks founded civilization in the Americas (Winters 1977a, 1981d, , 1983b, 1986); and East and Southeast Africa (1979, 1979a, 1980b, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1983c, 1983d, 1986c, 1987b).
  
  An important finding of Winters is that the ancestors of the Dravidian and Manding speaking people appear to have left Africa at the same time around 2600 B.C. (Winters 1985c). And that these people founded civilization in Europe , Elam, India and ancient China (1991a).
  
  Winters' (1988, 1989c,1990, 1991a), like Diop before him has also discussed (1) the African substratum in European languages; (2) explained the conflict between African people and Indo-European speaking people ; and (3) the loss of early African settlements in Europe to the contemporary European people due to natural catastrophes and wars after 1000 B.C. This research provides valuable source material for the elaboration of the African influence on European languages and the languages of East and Central Asia (Winters, 1989b, 1990, 1991b).
  
  During the research of Winters' (1985b) it was discovered that the Proto-Saharan people used a common writing system. Winters (1983) found that he could read the ancient inscriptions left by these people in the Sahara dating to 3000 B.C. A comparison of the Manding language and the Elamite, Sumerian and Dravidian languages confirmed there genetic unity.
  
  The evidence of a genetic relationship between the Manding languages, which was used to decipher the earliest Proto-Saharan writings and other languages spoken by the founders of civilization in India and Mesopotamia, led to the assumption that the writing systems used by these ancient founders of civilization could be deciphered. The confirmation of Diop's theory of linguistic constancy made it possible for to confirm this hypothesis and read the common signs used to write the Harappan script ( Winters, 1982b, 1984b, 1984d, 1984e, 1985b, 1987;2013a), the Minoan script (Winters,2013c)and the Olmec script (Winters, 1977a, 1977b, 1979b;2013e).
  
  The most important finding of Winters (1984,2013d) was the cognate language of Meroitic. Using the evidence presented by the Classical sources that the Kushites ruled empires in Africa and Asia, Winters (1984, 1988, 1989) illustrated that the cognate language of Meroitic, was the Tokharian language spoken by the Kushana people of Central Asia (Winters,2013f). Using the Kushana/Tokharian language many Meroitic inscriptions have been deciphered (Winters, 1984,1988, 1989, 1995a, 1995b,2013d, 2013f).
  
  Another important Afrocentrist is Molefi Asante at Temple University. Asante has been active in the field of Afrocentric studies for over twenty years. He is also founder, at Temple , of the major center of academic Afrocentrism outside of the University of Senegal when Diop was living.
  
  In numerous articles and books Asante ( 1988, 1990, 1987) has laid out the foundations of Africalogical research . Much of Asante's theoretical foundations of Afrocentrism is found in his book Kemet, Afrocentricity, and Knowledge. In this book Asante gives keen insight into the role of Egypt in the creation of an Africalogical humanities. He also shatters many of the long held myths perpetuated by Europeans that Africans failed to invent writing, and strong highly organized nation-states and empires.
  
  But he does not stop here in making a case for Africalogical research. He also explains and discusses European attitudes toward race and ethnicity in the United States.
  
  In addition to arguing persuasively for the establishment of Afrocentrism "as a legitimate response to the human condition" (Asante, 1990, p.5), Asante has written a fine introductory text on Egypt and other ancient African nations that can be used in Upper grades and High School. This text is called Classical Africa. In this timely book Asante explains the rise and fall of many African civilizations from ancient Egypt to the Western Sudani kingdom of Songhay.
  
  In conclusion, africalogical research, is not new, it has been conducted by Afro-Americans for over 150 years. African-American Afrocentrists dominated the field of African-American and African history from the 1870's up to the 1930's(DuBois 1971).
  
  Beginning in the 1940's "established" Euro-American writers became interested in African-American history; and in the 1960's as many African nations became independent other European scholars began to dominate the interpretation and writing of African history. These scholars began to decide on the criterions that make the "proper" research of ancient African history.
  
  By the 1970"s many Afrocentrists in French speaking Africa began to assert themselves, and write highly readable and intelligent prose on the African origin of Egypt and the genetic unity of the Black African and Egyptian languages. This group of researchers were complemented by scholars like Ben Jochannon and C.A. Winters. Today the research efforts of both the FAACS and AAS afrocentrists continue to confirm the great history of African people from a falsificationist perspective.
  
  
  
  REFERENCES
  
  Anselin, A. (1981). Le Question Peule. Paris: Editions Karthala.
  
  Anselin, A. (1982). Le Mythe D' Europe. Paris: Editions
  
  Anthropos.
  
  Anselin, A. (1989). pour une morpologie elementaire du Negro-Africain, Carbet, no.6, pp.98-105.
  
  Anselin, A. (1992a). L'ibis du savoir-l'ecriture et le mythe en ancienne Egypte, ANKH, no.1, pp.79-88.
  
  Anselin, A. (1992b). Samba. Guadeloupe: Editions de L'Unite de Recherche-Action Guadeloupe.
  
  Anselin, A.(1993). Anamneses. Guadeloupe: Editions de l'UNIRAG.
  
  Armstrong,R.G. (1962). Glottochronology and African linguistics. Journal of African History,3(2), 283-290.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete.(1987). The Afrocentricity Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton: Africa World Press.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete. (1990). Kemet, Afrocentricity, and Knowledge. Trenton: Africa World Press.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete. (1994). Classical Africa. Maywood, N.J.: The Peoples Publishing Group, Inc.
  
  Baines, J. (1991, August 11). Was civilization made in Africa? The New York Times Review of Books, 12-13.
  
  Boas, F. (1911). The mind of primitive man. New York.
  
  Bynon,T. (1978). Historical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.
  
  Cèsaire, A. (1956). Cahier d'un retour au pays Natal.
  
  Paris: Presence Africaine.
  
  Crawley,T. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  
  Delafosse,M. (1901). La Langue Mandigue. Paris.
  
  Delany, M.R. (1879). Principia of Ethnology: Origins of Races and Color. Philadelphia, Penn.
  
  Diagne,P. (1981). In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa I: Methodology and African prehistory (233-260). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
  
  Diop, C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Westport, Conn.:Lawrence Hill and Company.
  
  Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
  
  Diop, C.A. (1978). Precolonial Black Africa. Wesport, Conn. :Lawrence Hill and Company.
  
  Diop, C.A. 1981. A methodology for the study of migrations. In African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, by UNESCO. (Unesco: Paris) 86--110.
  
  Diop, C.A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn,N.Y.:
  
  Lawrence Hill Books.
  
  DuBois, W.E.B. (1915). The Negro. New York.
  
  DuBois, W.E.B. (1946). The World and Africa. New York.
  
  DuBois, W.E.B. (1971). The American Negro Intelligentsia. In Apropos of Africa, (Ed.) by Adelaide Hill and Martin Kilson, (362-374) New York: Anchor Books.
  
  Ehret,C. (1988). Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift. Antiquity, 62, 564-574.
  
  Ehret,C. & Posnansky (Eds.). (1982). The Archaeological and linguistic reconstruction of African history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  
  Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skin, white Masks. New York: Grove Press.
  
  Frobenius, L. (1913). The voice of Africa. 2 vols. New York.
  
  Hock,H.H. (1988). Principles of historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
  
  Johnston,H.H. (1910). The Negro in the New World. New York.
  
  Johnston, J.W. (1971). Africa at the peace table and the descendants of Africans in American democracy. In Apropos of Africa, (Ed.) by Adelaide Hill and Martin Kilson, (pp.384-392)
  
  New York: Anchor Books.
  
  Labov,W.(1965). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.
  
  Labov.,W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stokwell,R.P. and Macaulay, R.K.S. (Eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory (101-171). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  
  Lefkowitz, M. (1992, February 10). Not out of Africa. The New Republic, 29-36.
  
  Lord,R. (1966). Comparative Linguistics. London: St. Paul's House.
  
  Lowenthal, D. (1972). West Indian Societies. New York: Oxford University.
  
  Mbiti, J. S. 1970. African religions and Philosophy. Garden City: Anchor Press.
  
  Meillet, A. 1926. Introduction à l'etude comparatif des languages Indo-Europeennes. Paris.
  
  Moitt,B. (1989) CHIEKH Anta Diop and the African diaspora: Historical continuity and socio-cultural symbolism. Presence Africaine, 149/150, 347-360.
  
  McIntosh, S. K. & McIntosh, R. (1983). Forgotten Tells of Mali. Expedition, 35-47.
  
  Ngom,G. (1986). Rapports egypte-Afrique noire: aspects linguistiques, Presence Africaine, no.137/138, pp.25-57.
  
  Niane,D.T.(Ed.). (1984). Introduction. General History of Africa IV (1-14). London: Heinemann Educational Books.
  
  Obenga, T. (1973). L'Afrique dans l'antiquite-Egypte pharaonique-Afrique noire. Paris: Presence Africaine.
  
  Obenga, T. (1978a). Africa in antiquity, Africa Quarterly, 18, no.1, pp.1-15.
  
  Obenga,T. (1978b). The genetic relationship between Egyptian (ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern African languages. In
  
  UNESCO (Ed.), The peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script (65-72). Paris: UNESCO.
  
  Obenga, T. (1988). Esquisses d'une histoire culturelle de l'Afrique par la lexicologie, Presence Africaine, no.140, pp.1-25.
  
  Obenga, T. (1992). Le chamito-semitique n'existe pas, ANKH , no.1, pp.51-58.
  
  Obenga, T. (1993a). Origine commune de l'Egyptien Ancien du Copte et des langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.
  
  Obenga, T. Origine Commune de l"Egyptien ancien du coptes et des langues negro-africaines modernes. Paris: Editions l'Harmattan.
  
  Olderogge, L. (1981). Migrations and ethnic and linguistic differentiations. In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.),General History of Africa I: Methodology and African History (271-278). Paris: UNESCO.
  
  Pawley,A. & Ross,M. (1993). Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 425-459.
  
  Pfouma, O. L'abeille royale, Carbet, no.6, pp.98-105.
  
  Robins, R.H. (1974). General Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana State University Press.
  
  Ruhlen, M. 1994. The origin of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  
  Senghor, L.S. (1961). Negritude and African socialism, African Affairs, pp.20-25.
  
  Toukara, B. (1989). Problematique du comparatisme , egyptien ancien/langues africaines (wolof), Presence Africain, no.149/150,
  
  pp.313-320.
  
  Welmers, W. (1968). Niger Congo-Mande. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 7,113-140.
  
  Williams, B. (1987). The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul:Cemetery L. Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1977). "The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2, (1977), pages 941-967.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1977a) "Islam in Early North and South America", Al-Ittihad) .
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (January 1979b). "Trade between East Africa and China", Afrikan Mwalimu, pp. 25-31.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1979c). "Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 , pp. 61-97.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1980a). "The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1980b) "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China",PISAS 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1981a) "The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1,pp. 103-110.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1981b). "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) pp.789- 807.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1981c). "Further Thoughts on Japanese Dravidian Connection",Dravidian Language Association News 5, no9, pp. 1-4.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (December, 1981/ January 1982a) "Mexico's Black Heritage", The Black Collegian,pp. 76-84.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad, (1982b) "The Harappan script Deciphered :Proto-Dravidian Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS,1981,(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) pp.925-936.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1982c). Lectures in Africana: Kushite Diaspora, Chicago: Uthman dan Fodio Institute.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1983a).The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books ) pages 208-214.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1983b) "Les fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete", Afrique Histoire, no8,pp. 13-18.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1983c). "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1,no2. Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1983d). "Possible Relationship between the Manding and Japanese", Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9, pp. 151-158.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters. (January 1984). "Magyar and Proto-Saharan Relationship",Fighter (Hungarian language Newspaper) Cleveland,Ohio , p.2.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad(1984a). The Indus Valley Writing is Proto-Dravidian",Journal of Tamil Studies , no 25 , pp.50-64.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (Juin 1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques , No.23 , pages 18-21.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad(June 1984c) "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil ,International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no2, pp. 347-353.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1984d). "The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic Seals", Tamil Civilization 2, no1 , pp. 1-8.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1984e). "The Harappan Writing of the Copper Tablets", Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3, pp. 1-5.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985a). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no.1 , pp. 1-9.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985b). "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no.1 ( 1985b), pages 13-19.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1985c). "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils", Journal of Tamil Studies , no27 , pp. 65-92.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1985d). "The genetic Unity between the Dravidian, Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", Sixth ISAS ,1984,(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) pp. 1413-1425.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 , pp. 77-96.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986b). "Blacks in Ancient America", Colorlines 3, no.2 , pp. 26-27.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986c). "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2,pp. 225-241.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters. (1986d). The Dravidian Origin of the Mountain and Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9, no.2 , pages 144-148.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986e). "Dravidian and Magyar /Hungarian", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 15, no.2.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986f). "The Rise of Islam in the Western Sahara",Topaz 2, no.1 , pp. 5-15.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1987). The Harappan Script. Journal of Tamil Studies, no. 30, pp.89-111.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1988). "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum in Tokharian",Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos. 1-2, pp. 131-141.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986b). Common African and Dravidian
  
  place name elements, South Asian Anthropologist, 9, no.1 pp.33-36.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989)"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics ,18, no.l.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989b). "Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet: Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, pp. 149-152.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989c). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 , pp. 98-127.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1990). "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2, pp. 120-144.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991). The Proto-Sahara. The Dravidian Encyclopaedia. (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume 1.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991b). Linguistic evidence for Dravidian influence on trade and animal domestication in Central and East Asia, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20, no.2, pp.91-102.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1994). Afrocentrism: A valid Frame of References. Journal of Black Studies 25, no.2 , pp.170-190.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1995a). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nubica V. http://www.scribd.com/doc/91808168/The-Inscriptions-of-Tanyidamani
  
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1995b). The meroitic chamber inscription. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nibica V.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (n.d.). Meroitic inscriptions from Karanog. forthcoming Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
  
  Winters, Clyde ,(2013a). THE decipherment of Indus Valley Writing. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4820718/The-Decipherment-of-the-Indus-Valley-Writing
  
  Winters, Clyde.(2013b). Unofficial history of Tamil. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2565099/Unofficial-History-of-Tamil-Writing
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013c). Ancient African Writing Systems in Middle Africa. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2565099/Unofficial-History-of-Tamil-Writing
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013d). Meroitic Language. http://www.scribd.com/doc/112999049/Meroitic-Language
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013e). Olmec Writing and Language. http://www.scribd.com/doc/92620602/Olmec-Writing-and-Language
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013f). Tocharian the Cognate language of Meroitic. http://www.scribd.com/doc/91594296/Tocharian-the-Cognate-Language-of-Meroitic
  
  
  Yurco, F. (1989). "Were the ancient Egyptians Black?", Biblical Archaeological Review 15, no5 , pages 24-29,58.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
What exactly are "Afrasan signature Y chromosomes"
and where can I learn more about them as well as
other genetic linguistic signatures you mentioned
previously like for Cushitic?

---

... as requested, here it is:

E-M35, signature of Afrasan

---

quote:

---

For the 'Cushitic' signature, see Tiskkoff 2009:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Only linguistic evidence can disconfirm Obenga.

---

This is not true.

---

quote:

---

.. what appears to be pure denial of the existence of evidence that Berber and Semitic are related to Afrasan languages.

---

quote:

---

... cross-disciplinary data can be used to [] at least bring into question something proposed by data from other disciplines.
. . . .
... theories were proposed using one discipline, and abandoned/confirmed using findings in another.

---

quote:

---

... its a known fact that modern linguistic phyla don't go back much further than the Terminal Pleistocene.

---

Agreed. Which brings us back to what did Aterians,
Maurusians, and Capsians speak. They all carried
some variety of U6 though their nrY varied from
A to varieties of E-M35.


I find your idea of lingual chromosome signatures
interesting and invite you to develop it more in
the Africa, genetics, and languages thread please.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Thanks will add to my Tamazight folder!

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
The word tifinagh or tifinigh is widely thought to be a feminine plural cognate of Punic, through the feminine prefix ti- and Latin Punicus; thus tifinigh would mean "the Phoenician"
Proto-Berber might be as recent as 3000 BP. Louali & Philippson (2003) .


Tukuler you will find this book chapter interesting if you were not aware of it already:

Some thoughts on the Origin of the Libyco-Berber Alphabet | Robert Kerr


http://www.academia.edu/450751/Some_thoughts_on_the_Origin_of_the_Libyco-Berber_Alphabet

scroll down a bit for the English

---

quote:

---

Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.

---

From A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms (Trombetta 2011)

That common ancestor was speaking the Negro-Egyptian language (or a pre-form of it) determined by Obenga.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Here's a link to a document about the proposed Kongo-Saharan (aka Niger-Saharan) language phylum discussed earlier in this thread.

The Kongo-Saharan language phylum combines (genetically of course - in linguistic) the Niger-Kordofanian language family (Niger-Kongo, Bantu, Wolof, Yoruba, Dogon, etc) with Nilo-Saharan language family.

Under Obenga's classification. This Kongo-Saharan language family along with the Cushitic, Chadic, Ancient Egyptian language families would all be descended from the same Afro-Egyptian language family (called Negro-Egyptian by Obenga).





nostratic.net/books/(245)blench%20-%20macrophylum2.pdf (egyptsearch don't allow parenthesis in URL name, so you will have to copy paste this address into your browser's address bar).

So at one time, according to Blench, they were a group of people all speaking a language called Proto-Kongo-Saharan (Niger-Saharan) which later diversified into Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan language families.

According to Obenga, before that time, there was also a group of people all speaking a language called Proto-Afro-Egyptian which later diversified into Kongo-Saharan, Ancient Egyptian, Cushitic and Chadic language families. Most linguists already consider all those language families to have originated in the same region in Africa.

The location of those proto languages was probably somewhere in the Sudan/Southern Egypt/East African region.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Here's an excerpt from Ehret placing the origin of all modern African language families somewhere in Eastern Africa.


Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)

Clearly all modern African language families are said to have originated in Eastern Africa.

This fit perfectly with Obenga's classification of African language families.

All those African languages could have shared a common ancestor proto-language (called Negro-Egyptian by Obenga) somewhere in Eastern Africa with migration within the Eastern African region leading to the first differentiation between the various modern African language families. Here, we're talking about the common origin of all modern language families spoken in Africa. Somewhere in Eastern Africa. The date this common African language would have been spoken would be before 10000BP.
 

---

Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
 
I actually have this book and it is excellent. Here is Mboli's reconstruction and new language models.



It is totally different from what you will read in most linguistic literature. He keeps Obenga's Negro-Egyptian, but Proto-Negro-Egyptian breaks up into two dialects: bere and beer. These are based on how the vowels are treated by each group, as well as the prefixes and suffixes. Excellent work.

He also reaffirms something I've been saying on this very forum for a number of years now, that Coptic is not the last stage of Egyptian. It is a totally different language.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
In addition to Obenga's new book,L'égyptien pharaonique: une langue négro-africaine, mentioned in this thread by Asar Imhotep. Here's another book which also built on his pioneer work:




Origine des langues africaines: essai d'application de la méthode by Jean-Claude Mboli

I don't have the book, only read some excerpt off the web, but after explaining the comparative methodology, debunking Greenberg classification among other things. He use the comparative method to compare Middle Egyptian, Copte, Sango (his native language), Zande, Hausa, Somali. Proving that they are genetically linked.

Combined with Obenga's new book in which he compares Ancient Egyptian with Niger-Congo family languages (and Bahr El-Ghazal language which I don't know their family). This should provides another fundamental entry into African comparative linguistic and history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
I actually have this book and it is excellent. Here is Mboli's reconstruction and new language models.



It is totally different from what you will read in most linguistic literature. He keeps Obenga's Negro-Egyptian, but Proto-Negro-Egyptian breaks up into two dialects: bere and beer. These are based on how the vowels are treated by each group, as well as the prefixes and suffixes. Excellent work.

He also reaffirms something I've been saying on this very forum for a number of years now, that Coptic is not the last stage of Egyptian. It is a totally different language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
@ Dr. Winters, we have to remember that archaeology will never tell you what languages a people spoke unless they actually wrote on the archaeological artifacts. Secondly, the Egyptians, in the Famine Stele, inform us of their ancestry from the beginnings of the Nile. However, this could be only a segment of the population. We know Egyptians came from all routes. However, the people themselves discussed their ancestors along the Nile, not in the West in the Sahara, although climatology and archaeology informs us migrations there.

Thirdly, a lingua franca is not the same as a mixed languaged or Creole, which I think you are hitting at. English or French, for example, are lingua francas of Africa, but they are distinct languages that belong to a people and have an origin: even with the many borrowings. Egyptian is no different.

And again, there are SOME traditions that come from the Sahara and there are others that do not. Again, their orientation and the land of their ancestors was to the South. Some claim ancestors to the West (land of Yam which might be in Sudan; see Robert Buval's _Black Genesis_). It is complex.

I have pretty much everyone's analysis on the origins of these languages and the most convincing is that of the major phylums originating in the East along the Nile. Even you cite Welmer's who even suggested Niger-Congo may have originated along the Nile. It would make sense if it is argued that NC is really a branch of Nilo Saharan, which originates along the Nile.

Much of ancient Egyptian cultural motifs and concepts I can find in central Africa: including the major deities of (e.g., Ra, Amen, Osiris, Isis, etc.). Again, no amount of DNA or archaeological evidence is going to demonstrate what languages people spoke.

---

Archaeology and skeletons can not tell the language a population spoke. But archaeology can tell us where a population , as represented by their culture came from. The archaeology tells us the ancient Egyptiabns came from the Sahara--not Great Lakes.

I quote Welmers and accept his identification of Nubia as the origin for much of the Mande expansion into West Africa. But research indicates that Mande speakers also ebter West Africa via the Fezzan. See:

http://olmec98.net/man1.htm


But if you are familiar with my work I have always claimed the Highland Saharan region as the place of Origin for the Dravidians, Elamites and Black African speakers. See:

http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf

The Egyptians originated in the Saharan highlands. The cultural features taken to the Nile Valley by the ancient Egyptians support this wiew.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The Niger-Congo (NC) Superfamily of languages is the largest family of languages spoken in Africa. Researchers have assumed that the NC speakers originated in West Africa in the Inland Niger Delta or East Africa. The research indicates that the NC speakers originated in the Saharan Highlands 12kya and belonged to the Ounanian culture. The NC population cultivated millet from Saharan Africa to South India.

Phylogenetically the NC mtDNA haplogroups include L1,L2,L3, U5, L3(M,N). The y-Chromosome haplotypes associated with the NC population were A,B, E1b1a, E1b1b, E2, E3a and R1. A major finding was that the Atlantic, Mande and Dravidian languages of India, form a new NC Subfamily we can designate Indo-African. See:

https://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/3149

The Niger-Congo Speakers probably played an important role in the peopling of the Sahara. Drake et al make it clear there was considerable human activity in the Sahara before it became a desert[1]. Drake et al [1] provides evidence that the original settlers of this wet Sahara, who used aquatic tool kits, were Nilo-Saharan (NS) speakers. The authors also recognized another Saharan culture that played a role in the peopling of the desert. This population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [2].
The Ounanians were members of the Capsian population.There was continuity between the populations in the Maghreb and southern Sahara referred to as Capsians, Iberomaurusians, and Mechtoids [3]. The Niger-Congo speakers are decendants of the Capsian population.
Capsian people did not only live in Afrca, they were also present in South Asia. Using craniometric data researchers have made it clear that the Dravidian speakers of South India and the Indus valley were
primarily related to the ancient Capsian or Mediterranean population [4-9].
Lahovary [7] and Sastri [8] maintains that the Capsian population was unified over an extensive zone from Africa, across Eurasia into South India. Some researchers maintain that the Capsian civilization originated in East Africa [7].

The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger [10]. The Ounanian tradition is probably associated with the Niger-Congo phyla. This would explain the close relationship between the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages.

The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. From here NC populations migrated into the Fezzan, Nile Valley and Sudan as their original homeland became more and more arid.

The Niger-Congo speakers formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. Originally hunter-gatherers the Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep).




.


The anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that East Indian people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.Dravidian languages belong to the Niger-Congo family.

In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10
(1976, pp.23-27:24. ).

Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26

can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote
_________________________________________________________________
Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9).
________________________________________________________________________


B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.


B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .


Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).

There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1
) .

There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .


There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).

Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.

Linguistic Evidence

1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.

1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.

1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians

1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.

1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.

1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.)
_________________________________________________________________

code:

---

COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS

ENGLISH    DRAVIDIAN      SENEGALESE        MANDING
MOTHER        AMMA          AMA,MEEN          MA
FATHER    APPAN,ABBA       AMPA,BAABA         BA
PREGNANCY   BASARU          BIIR              BARA
SKIN          URI          NGURU,GURI         GURU
BLOOD       NETTARU         DERET             DYERI
KING       MANNAN          MAANSA,OMAAD        MANSA
GRAND      BIIRA           BUUR                BA
SALIVA     TUPPAL          TUUDDE              TU
CULTIVATE  BEY            ,MBEY            BE
BOAT       KULAM           GAAL                KULU
FEATHER    SOOGE           SIIGE               SI, SIGI
MOUNTAIN    KUNRU          TUUD                KURU
ROCK       KALLU           XEER                KULU
STREAM     KOLLI           KAL                 KOLI

---

code:

---

English                Senegalese            Dravidian
body                   W. yaram                 uru
head                   D. fuko,xoox              kukk
hair                   W. kawar                 kavaram 'shoot'
eye                    D. kil                   kan, khan
mouth                  D. butum                 baayi, vaay
lip                    W. tun,F. tondu          tuti
heart                  W. xol,S. xoor           karalu
pup                    W. kuti                  kutti
sheep                  W. xar                   'ram'
cow                    W. nag                   naku
hoe                    W. konki                
bronze                 W. xanjar                xancara
blacksmith             W. kamara               
skin                      dol                   tool
mother                 W. yaay                   aayi
child                  D. kunil                  kunnu, kuuci
ghee                     o-new                   ney

---

Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.

The major grain exploited by Saharan populations was rice ,the yam and pennisetum. McIntosh and McIntosh (1988) has shown that the principal domesticate in the southern Sahara was bulrush millet. There has been considerable debate concerning the transport of African millets to India. Weber (1998) believes that African millets may have come to India by way of Arabia. Wigboldus (1996) on the other hand argues that African millets may have arrived from Africa via the Indian Ocean in Harappan times.

Both of these theories involve the transport of African millets from a country bordering on the Indian Ocean. Yet, Weber (1998) and Wigboldus (1996) were surprised to discover that African millets and bicolor sorghum , did not reach many East African countries until millennia after they had been exploited as a major subsistence crop at Harappan and Gujarat sites.

This failure to correlate the archaeological evidence of African millets in countries bordering on the Indian Ocean, and the antiquity of African millets in India suggest that African millets such as Pennisetum and Sorghum must have come to India from another part of Africa. To test this hypothesis we will compare Dravidian and African terms for millet.

Winters (1985) has suggested that the Proto-Dravidians formerly lived in the Sahara. This is an interesting theory, because it is in the Sahara that the earliest archaeological pennisetum has been found.

Millet impressions have been found on Mande ceramics from both Karkarchinkat in the Tilemsi Valley of Mali, and Dar Tichitt in Mauritania between 4000 and 3000 BP. (McIntosh & McIntosh 1983a,1988; Winters 1986b; Andah 1981)

In conclusion, the Ounanian tradition began around 10kya [2-3]. The population associated with this civilization was probably Niger-Congo speakers.

The Niger-Congo speakers originated in the Saharan Highlands and early migrated into the Sudan[4,9,28]. Around the time we see the development of the Ounanian culture in North Africa, we see the spread of the Saharan-Sudanese ceramic style into the Sahara [5,9, 12,28] by Niger Congo speakers.

The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speakers were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took their red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, along with the cultivation of millet.


Given the archaeological evidence for millets in the Sahara, leads to the corollary theory that if the Dravidians originated in Africa, they would share analogous terms for millet with African groups that formerly lived in the Sahara.
The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took there red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, and the cultivation of millet. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Amun-Ra The Ultimate , following Ehret that claims all African languages originated in East Africa. Asar I do not accept the idea that the African language phylums originated in East Africa between the Sudan and the Great Lakes region. I don't accept the idea because the archaeology supports the idea that the early Egyptians moved into the Nile Valley and Sudan from the Sahara.

I agree that reconstruction can confirm a genetic relationship between two or more languages.

I have reconstructed, Proto-Saharan terms (Winters,1985,1989,2013), Proto-Afro-Dravidian terms (Winters, 1999a,1999b,2000) and Proto-African terms (Winters,2013), but I don't believe in the ability to reconstruct a Pre-Proto-language. You talk about a Pre-Proto-Bantu language, e.g.," Stewart's Proto-Potou-Akanic-Bantu can be considered a Pre-Proto-Bantu". This would just be in my opinion a Proto-Bantu language. For example, when I reconstructed Proto-Mande languages I recognize that the Mande languages separated into Northern and Southeastern branches.

As a result, you theorecticallly should be able to reconstruct Proto-Mande which would include all the Mande languages (which I have done Winters,1986), and also Proto-Northern and Proto-Southeastern Mande. Being able to reconstruct these proto languages does not make Proto-Northern and Proto-Southeastern Mande Pre-Proto- languages they just represent the sub-families in the Super-Mande family of languages.


You say: "No one is arguing these languages came from Egypt. The argument is that the phylum for which ciKam (Egyptian) derived came from east Africa and moved up the Nile into Egypt. This is consistent with Egyptian history as demonstrated by the Egyptians themselves."

I disagree. First of all ancient Egyptian was probably a lingua franca used to unite liguistically the various groups who lived in the diverse "city-states" that made up ancient Egypt.Since it was a lingua franca, it could not have been derived from a language spoken in East Africa around the Great Lakes region, because the archaeology supports a Saharan origin for much of Egyptian civilization not Great Lakes region.

There are similarities between Egyptian and Saharan motifs (Farid,1985). It was in the Sahara that we find the first evidence of agriculture, animal domestication and weaving (Farid , 1985, p.82). This highland region is the Kemites "Mountain of the Moons " region, the area from which the civilization and goods of Kem, originated.I call this area The African Fertile Crescent.

The rock art of the Saharan Highlands support the Egyptian traditions that in ancient times they lived in the Mountains of the Moon. The Predynastic Egyptian mobiliar art and the Saharan rock art share many common themes including, characteristic boats(Farid 1985,p. 82), men with feathers on their head (Petrie , 1921,pl. xvlll,fig.74; Raphael, 1947, pl.xxiv, fig.10; Vandier, 1952, p.285, fig. 192), false tail hanging from the waist (Vandier, 1952, p.353; Farid, 1985,p.83; Winkler 1938,I, pl.xxlll) and the phallic sheath (Vandier, 1952, p.353; Winkler , 1938,I , pl.xvlll,xx, xxlll).

Most of the ancient Egyptians had lived in the Maa Confederation, before migrating into Nile Valley as a result of the desertification of the Saharan region after 3000.


References:

Farid,El-Yahky. (1985). "The Sahara and Predynastic Egypt an Overview".The Journal for the Society for the Study Egyptian Antiquities, 17 (1/2): 58-65.

Petrie,W.M.F. (1921). Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery. London.

Raphael, . 1947. Prehistoric Pottery . New York

Vandier,J. (1952). Manuel d'archeologie Egyptienne.

Winkler, H.A. (1938). Rock Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt. London. 2 volumes.

Winters,C.(1986).The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande.The Mankind Quarterly, 27(1):77-96.

__________.(1985)."The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians ,Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no1,pages 1-9.

______________.(1989).,"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18, nol.


_______________.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98

.
_______________.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats. PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87.

_______________.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.

Winters,C.(2013). The Egyptian Language. Createspace Books.
.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


The Linguistic Methods of Chiekh Anta Diop

By
Clyde Winters


Chiekh Anta Diop has contributed much to the Afrocentric social sciences. Here we discuss many of Diop's views on using the linguistic sciences to rediscover the ancient history of Blacks.



Chiekh Anta Diop has made important contributions to linguistic theory in relation to African historiography. Diop's work illustrates that it is important for scholars to maintain a focus on the historical and linguistic factors which define the "personnalitè culturelle africaine" (Diop 1991, 227).


Language is the sanctum sanctorum of Diop's Afrocentric historical method. The Diopian view of historiography combines the research of linguistics, history and psychology to interpret the cultural unity of African people.


C. Anta Diop is the founder of modern Afrocentricism . Diop (1974,1991) laid the foundations for the Afrocentric idea in education. He laid these foundations using both the historical and anthropological/linguistic methods of research to explain the role of the Blacks in World History.



There are three components in the genetic model: 1) common Physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages. (Winters 1989a) Diop over the years has brought to bear all three of these components in his illumination of Kemetic civilization. (Diop 1974,1977,1978,1991)


The opposition of many Eurocentric scholars to Afrocentric -ism results from white hostility to Diop's idea of a Black Egypt, and the view that Egyptians spoke an African ,rather than Afro-Asiatic language.

Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered.(Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991)

For example Lefkowitz (1992) in The New Republic, summarizes

Diop (1974) but never presents any evidence to dispute the findings of Diop. The most popular "review" of Diop (1991) was done by Baines (1991) review in the New York Times Book Review. In this "review" Baines (1991) claims that "...the evidence and reasoning used to support the arguments are often unsound".

Instead of addressing the evidence Diop (1991) presents of the African role in the rise of civilization that he alleges is "unsound", he is asking the reader to reject Diop's thesis without refutation of specific evidence presented by Diop of the

African contributions to Science and Philosophy. Baines (l991)

claims that Diop's Civilization or Barbarism, is not a work of originality, he fails to dispute any factual evidence presented by Diop.

Baines (1991) wants the public to accept his general negative comments about Civilization or Barbarism ,based on the fact that he is an Egyptologist. This is not enough, in academia

to refute a thesis one must present counter evidence that proves the falseness of a thesis not unsubstantiated rhetoric. We can not accept the negative views of Baines on faith alone.

In the recovery of information concerning the African past, Diop promotes semantic anthropology, comparative linguistics and the study of Onomastics. The main thesis of Diop is that typonymy and ethnonymy of Africa point to a common cradle for Paleo-Africans in the Nile Valley (Diop 1978, 67).

Onomastics is the science of names. Diop has studied legends, placenames and religious cult terms to discover the unity of African civilization. Diop (1981, 86) observed that:

"An undisputed linguistic relationship between two geographically remote groups of languages can be relevant for the study of migrations. A grammatical (or genetic) relationship if clear enough is never an accident".

As a result, Diop has used toponyms (place-names), anthroponyms (personal names) and ehthnonyms (names of ethnic groups/tribes) to explain the evidence of analogous ethnic (clan) names in West Africa and the Upper Nile (Diop 1991).

In Precolonial Black Africa, Diop used ethnonyms to chart the migrations of African people in West Africa. And in The African Origin of Civilization, Diop used analyses acculturaliste or typological analysis to study the origin and spread of African cultural features from the Nile Valley to West Africa through his examination of toponyms (Diop 1974, 182-183). In the Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Diop discussed the common totems and religious terms many African ethnic groups share (Diop 1978, 124).

LINGUISTIC TAXONOMY

This linguistic research has been based on linguistic classification or taxonomy. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based (Ruhlen 1994). Linguistic taxonomy is necessary for the identification of language families. The determination of language families give us the material to reconstruct the proto-language of a people and discover regular sound correspondences.

There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, typological, and areal. A genealogical classifica-tion groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A typological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.

COMPARATIVE METHOD

Diop has used comparative and historical linguistics to illuminate the Unity of African civilization. Diop (1977, xxv) has noted that

"The process for the evolution of African languages is clearly apparent; from a far we (have) the idea that Wolof is descendant by direct filiation to ancient Egyptian, but the Wolof, Egyptian and other African languages (are) derived from a common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common African or the Negro- African of L. Homburger or of Th. Obenga."

The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.

Diop is a strong supporter of the comparative method in the rediscovery of Paleo-African. The reconstruction of Paleo-African involves both reconstruction and recognition of regular sound correspondence. The goal of reconstruction is the discovery of the proto-language of African people is the recovery of Paleo-African:

(1) vowels and consonants

(2) specific Paleo-African words

(3) common grammatical elements; and

(4) common syntactic elements.

The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages or Diop's Paleo-African. To reconstruct a proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since uniformity of terms leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.

HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS

A person's language provides us with evidence of the elements of a group's culture. Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about a group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologist make precise inferences about a groups culture elements.

Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of genetically related languages.

LINGUISTIC CONSTANCY

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 political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa. Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language.

African oral traditions and the eye witness accounts of travelers to Africa, make it clear that African empires although made up of diverse nationalities illustrated continuity. To accomodate the plural nature of African empires Africans developed a Federal system of government. (Niane , 1984) In fact we can not really describe ancient African state systems as empires, since this implies absolute rule or authority in a single individual. This political state of affairs rarely existed in ancient Africa, because in each African speech community local leadership was elected by the people within the community. (Diop, 1987) For example the Egyptians often appointed administrators over the conquered territories from among the conquered people. (Diop ,1991)

The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since neolithic times. (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985) This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.

In Africa due to the relative stability of socio-political structures and settled life, there has not been enough pressure exerted on African societies as a whole and African speech communities in particular, to cause radical internal linguistic changes within most African languages. Permanent settlements led to a clearly defined system of inheritance and royal succession. These traits led to stability on both the social and political levels.

This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and

Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:

First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time.(pp.153-154)

There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms. He concluded that:

I would have said that on this evidence African languages are changing with glacial slowness, but it seems to me that in a century a glacier would have changed a lot more than that. Perhaps it would be more in order to say that these languages are changing with geological slowness. (Armstrong, 1962, p.285).

Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:

Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.

THE BLACK AFRICAN ORIGIN OF EGYPT

Diop has contributed much to African linguistics. He was a major proponent of the Dravidian-African relationship (Diop 1974, 116), and the African substratum in Indo-European languages in relationship to cacuminal sounds and terms for social organiza-tion and culture (1974, 115). Diop (1978, 113) also recognized that in relation to Arabic words, after the suppression of the first consonant, there is often an African root.

Diop's major linguistic effort has been the classification of Black African and Egyptian languages . Up until 1977 Diop'smajor area of interest were morphological and phonological similarities between Egyptian and Black African languages. Diop (1977, 77-84) explains many of his sound laws for the Egyptian-Black African connection.

In Parènte Génétique de l'Egyptien pharraonique et des Langues Négro Africaines (PGEPLNA), Diop explains in some detail

his linguistic views in the introduction of this book. In PGEPLNA , Diop demonstrates the genetic relationship between ancient Egyptian and the languages of Black Africa. Diop provides thousands of cognate Wolof and Egyptian terms in support of his Black African-Egyptian linguistic relationship.

PALEO-AFRICAN

African languages are divided into Supersets (i.e., a family of genetically related languages, e.g., Niger-Congo) sets, and subsets. In the sets of African languages there are many parallels between phonological terms, eventhough there may be an arbitrary use of consonants which may have a similar sound. The reason for these changes is that when the speakers of Paleo-African languages separated, the various sets of languages underwent separate developments. As a result a /b/ sound in one language may be /p/ or /f/ in a sister language. For example, in African languages the word for father may be baba , pa or fa, while in the Dravidian languages we have appan to denote father.

Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about an ethnic group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologists make precise inferences about a linguistic group's cultural elements.

BLACKS IN WEST ASIA

In PGEPLNA Diop makes clear his views on the role of African languages in the rise of other languages. Using archaeological evidence Diop makes it clear that the original West Asians: Elamites and Sumerians were of Black origin (1974, 1977, xxix-xxxvii).

Diop (1974, 1991) advocates the unity of Black Africans

and Blacks in West Asia. Winters (1985,1989,1994) has elaborated on the linguistic affinity of African and West Asian languages.

This view is supported by linguistic evidence. For example these languages share demonstrative bases:

Proximate Distant Finite

Dravidian i a u

Manding i a u

Sumerian bi a

Wolof i a u

The speakers of West Asian and Black African languages also share basic culture items:

Chief city,village black,burnt

Dravidian cira, ca uru kam

Elamite Salu

Sumerian Sar ur

Manding Sa furu kami,"charcoal'

Nubia sirgi mar

Egyptian Sr mer kemit

Paleo-African *sar *uru *kam

OBENGA

Obenga (1978) gives a phonetic analysis of Black African and Egyptian. He illustrates the genetic affinity of consonants within the Black African (BA) and Egyptian languages especially the occlusive bilateral sonorous, the occlusive nasal apico-dental /n/ and /m/ , the apico-alveolar /r/ and the radical

proto-form sa: 'man, female, posterity' in Black Africa.

Language

Agaw asau, aso 'masculine

Sidama asu 'man'

Oromo asa id.

Caffino aso id.

Yoruba so 'produce'

Meroitic s' man

Fonge sunu id.

Bini eso 'someone'

Kikongo sa,se,si 'father'

Swahili (m)zee 'old person'

Egyptian sa 'man'

Manding si,se 'descendant,posterity,family'

Azer se 'individual, person'

Obenga (1978) also illustrated the unity between the verbs 'to come, to be, to arrive':

Language

Egyptian ii, ey Samo, Loma dye

Mbosi yaa Bisa gye

Sidama/Omo wa Wolof nyeu

Caffino wa Peul yah, yade

Yoruba wa Fonge wa

Bini ya Mpongwe bya

Manding ya,dya Swahili (Ku)ya

between t =/= d, highlight the alternation patterns of many Paleo-African consonants including b =/= p, l =/= r ,and

g =/= k.

The Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:

Galla senyi

Malinke se , si

Sumerian se

Egyptian sen 'granary'

Kannanda cigur

Bozo sii

Bambara sii

Daba sisin

Somali sinni

Loma sii

Susu sansi

Oromo sanyi

Dime siimu

Egyptian ssr 'corn'

id. ssn 'lotus plant'

id. sm 'herb, plant'

id. isw 'weeds'



In conclusion, Diop has done much to encourage the African recovery of their history. His theories on linguistics has inspired many African scholars to explain and elaborate the African role in the history of Africa and the world. This has made his work important to our understanding of the role of Black people in History.



REFERENCES

Armstrong,R.G. (1962). Glottochronology and African linguistics. Journal of African History,3(2), 283-290.

Baines, J. (1991, August 11). Was civilization made in Africa? The New York Times Review of Books, 12-13.

Bynon,T. (1978). Historical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.

Crawley,T. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Delafosse,M. (1901). La Langue Mandigue. Paris.

Diagne,P. (1981). In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa I: Methodology and African prehistory (233-260). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Diop, C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Westport, Conn.:Lawrence Hill and Company.

Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.

Diop, C.A. (1978). Precolonial Black Africa. Wesport, Conn. :Lawrence Hill and Company.

Diop, C.A. 1981. A methodology for the study of migrations. In African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, by UNESCO. (Unesco: Paris) 86--110.

Diop, C.A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn,N.Y.:

Lawrence Hill Books.

Dweyer, D.J. (1989). 2. Mande. In John Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), The Niger-Congo Languages (47-65). New York: University Press of America.

Ehret,C. (1988). Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift. Antiquity, 62, 564-574.

Ehret,C. & Posnansky (Eds.). (1982). The Archaeological and linguistic reconstruction of African history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hock,H.H. (1988). Principles of historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Labov,W.(1965). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.

Labov.,W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stokwell,R.P. and Macaulay, R.K.S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory (101-171). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lefkowitz, M. (1992, February 10). Not out of Africa. The New Republic, 29-36.

Mbiti, J. S. 1970. African religions and Philosophy. Garden City: Anchor Press.

Meillet, A. 1926. Introduction à l'etude comparatif des languages Indo-Europeennes. Paris.

Moitt,B. (1989) Chiekh Anta Diop and the African diaspora: Historical continuity and socio-cultural symbolism. Presence Africaine, 149/150, 347-360.

Pawley,A. & Ross,M. (1993). Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 425-459.

McIntosh, S. K. & McIntosh, R. (1983). Forgotten Tells of Mali. Expedition, 35-47.

Niane,D.T.(Ed.). (1984). Introduction. General History of Africa IV (1-14). London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Obenga,T. (1978). The genetic relationship between Egyptian (ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern African languages. In

UNESCO (Ed.), The peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script (65-72). Paris: UNESCO.

Obenga, T. (1993). Origine commune de l'Egyptien Ancien du Copte et des langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.

Lord,R. (1966). Comparative Linguistics. London: St. Paul's House.

Olderogge, L. (1981). Migrations and ethnic and linguistic differentiations. In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.),General History of Africa I: Methodology and African History (271-278). Paris: UNESCO.

Robins, R.H. (1974). General Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana State University Press.

Ruhlen, M. 1994. The origin of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Welmers, W. (1968). Niger Congo-Mande. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 7,113-140.

Williams, B. (1987). The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul:Cemetery L. Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press.

Winters,C.A. (1985). The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians.Tamil Civilization,3(1), 1-9.

Winters,C.A. (1986). The Migration routes of the Proto-Mande. The Mankind Quarterly,27(1), 77-96.

Winters, C.A. 1989. Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the genetic model. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 18 (1), 98-127.

Winters, C.A. (1994). Afrocentrism:A valid frame of reference. Journal of Black Studies, 25 (2), 170-190.

Yurco,F. 1989. Were the ancient Egyptians Black? Biblical Archaeology.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Afrocentric linguist use comparative linguistic methods to study the relationship between African and egtptian languages.

• Afrocentric Comparative and Historical Linguistic Methods
  
  In this paper we explore the linguistic methods used by Afrocentric linguists to document the relationship between Black African languages and their sister languages in Africa and Asia.
  
  
  
  By
  
  Clyde A. Winters
  
  
  
  There are two schools of Africalogical research: the African-American school (AAS) of Afrocentric research (Dubois, 1915, 1946) , and the French-speaking African and Afro-Caribbean school (FAACS) of Afrocentricity (Diop, 1974). The AAS was concerned with historical research while the FAACS has made linguistic research their domain of intellectual inquiry. A third school of Afrocentric researchers we will call pluridisciplinarians led by Anselin (1982,1993) and Winters (1985, 1989,1994) combine both historical and linguistic methods to explain the heritage of African people.
  
  An Afrocentric view of African history is written from the perspective of the Africans themselves. This type of writing on African history is centered on the role of Blacks/ Africans in Africa, and the fact that there was, and is a history of Africa.
  
  The central element in all Afrocentric research is the fact that ancient Kemet (or Egypt) was a Black African civilization. As a result of this theoretical base, most of the arguments made by contemporary Afrocentrists including the :
  
  (1) African origin of Egypt (Delany, 1879); and
  
  (2) African origin of civilizations in Europe and
  
  Asia (Johnson, 1971 pp.388-389; Dubois, 1946 p.122)
  
  were first made over a hundred (100) years ago by members of the AAS Afrocentrist group.
  
  Eurocentric School
  
  The major spokesman for the Eurocentric view of African history is Dinesh D'Souza (1995). Mr. D'Souza, a non-historian, linguist, etc., has made his mission in life the destruction of Multiculturalism, and Afrocentricism in particular, additions to the curriculum of American schools. D'Souza (1995 p. 360) believes that "...Afrocentrism fundamentally remains a pedagogy an initiation into a new form of black consciousness and also into manhood". Given this Eurocentric view of Africalogy, D'Souza (1995) sets out to prove that slavery was not racist; that segregation was established by paternal whites to protect the former slaves; and especially that "Egypt was a multiracial society" (p. 367) dominated by white skinned Egyptians, and that the only time that Blacks/Africans ruled Egypt, was during the Nubian dynasty (p. 368).
  
  African-American School
  
  The AFROCENTRIC historical method was developed over a hundred years ago. African-American researchers, including R. B. Lewis, Light and Truth, collected from the Bible and the ancient and modern history, containing the universal history of the Colored and Indian race from creation of the world to the present (Boston 1844); George W. Williams, History of the Negro race in America from 1619 to 1880...and an Historical sketch of Africa (New York 1982) and Rufus L. Perry, The Cushite or descendants of Ham (Springfield, Mass. 1893) used these methods to present a realistic picture of the African past.
  
  As you can see from the above titles most of these early works were based on material found in the Bible. According to the Bible, Blacks are the descendants of Ham who had four sons: Kush, Mizraim (Egypt/Kemet), Phut (Punt) and Canaan. these sons represent founders of the first world civilizations, such as Sumer, Phonecia, Arabia and Hatti. This recognition of the African origin of civilization in Africa and Mesopotamia was soon confirmed by the archaeological discovery of Sumer and Egypt.
  
  The AAS Afrocentrists developed a systematic group of principles for critically examining and presenting the body of source material related to the history of African people. Scholars such as W.E.B. DuBois, J.A. Rogers and Carter G. Woodson honed the AFROCENTRIC historical method to fine a edge. Woodson and DuBois made sure to employ the historical method in their careful research into the African past. And Rogers was a master of many languages which he used to gain insight into the history of African people from the numerous European sources he used to write the multivolume series Sex and Race.
  
  Knowledge about African people, especially the ancient history, has been hard to come by, because much of the "authentic" history of African people has often been published in non-English sources. This has meant that Afrocentric historians recognized the term document to include both written accounts about things said and done in the past, and also archaeological records. This broad interpretation of document has meant that these historians have been concerned with primary documents produced by eyewitnesses (e.g., the classicists of Greece and Rome) and also secondary sources related to archaeological research and the classical literature.
  
  The AAS Afrocentrists have mainly been concerned with the history of African people, in Africa and the world. It was the African American scholars who dominated the field of African historiography from the nineteenth century up into the 1930's (Dubois ,1971 p. 373).
  
  The founders of the Afrocentric schools of research have been careful to use many primary sources. These sources were written by the major classical authors (Johnson 1971) : Homer (DuBois, 1946; Diop 1974), Herodotus (DuBois, 1946 p.121; Diop 1974) and Diodorus Siculus (DuBois 1946, p.122; Diop 1974), and long ago were authenticated and are recognized as credible.
  
  The writings of the classicists have been important in establishing a foundation for the claims of the Afrocentrists because they have temporal proximity to many important events in the history of African people. Moreover, although the documents of the classicists were often biased, they report in clear prose the African role in the rise of civilization and culture in Africa and Asia and give internal credibility to their statements about African people.
  
  The major African American Afrocentrist such as J.A. Rogers, and W.E.B. DuBois have usually been able to read one or more foreign languages. There has been a need for learning a foreign language by members of the AAS because much of the literature dealing with African and Black civilizations has been written in French , Greek and German rather than English. Moreover, familiarity with a foreign language allows the Afrocentrist to check carefully all translations to insure that the documents they use in their research has internal credibility.
  
  Afrocentrists have traditionally been immensely concerned with contemporary archaeological finds related to African people. This emphasis on archaeological research is evident in the work of DuBois (1915,1946), and Woodson (1936,1949).
  
  The major secondary sources used by the early Afrocentrists include the work of Johnston (1910), Frobenius (1913), Boas (1911), Arnold L. von Heeren and Volney. DuBois (1915, p.147)notes that although many of these sources were used "none of these authors write from the point of view of the Negro as a man, or with anything but incidental acknowledgement of the existence or value of history".
  
  The first trained historian-sociologist to examine the African past was Dr. W.E.B. DuBois. In 1915, Dr. DuBois published the little book called The Negro. This book served as inspiration for many later AFROCENTRIC historians. This book, as obvious from the title, was concerned with the African both at home and abroad. The Negro, opened the field of AFROCENTRIC historiography. In this book DuBois collected the most recent materials on African affairs up to 1915, and presented a comprehensive whole, of the different elements of African history.
  
  In 1946, DuBois published The World and Africa. The World and Africa, was an important book in AFROCENTRIC research because in it DuBois outlined a world history on the Black races. In this book DuBois (1946, pp. ix-xi) makes it clear that he admired the work of many of his contemporaries such as J.A. Rogers and Hansberry, authors who had began their quest to discover the African past after reading The Negro.
  
  DuBois (1946) used up-to-date references to prove his thesis that Blacks founded civilization in Kemet (Egypt , pp.98-100), Africa and Arabia (pp.176-194). His discussion of the raise of Kemet and the importance of the Nubians and Thebaid group of upper Kemet in maintaining Egyptian traditions (DuBois 1946, pp. 104-108) is very well written. In addition, many scholars look to Bernal (1987, 1991) as the premier text on the falsification of Black history due to slavery and Eurocentricism, but in The World and Africa, DuBois pointed out clearly the role of European slavery and greed as the main motivating factors for the lack of truth in writing African history (DuBois, 1946 p.80).
  
  As a result of The Negro and The World and Africa, DuBois left a great deal of material that stimulated many Black scholars who read them, to become interested in the history of the African/Black race.
  
  In our opinion an influential pioneer historian and anthropologist researching the African past was Joel A. Rogers. James Spady has observed that Rogers' research encompasses three major areas: (1) the antiquity of Blacks; (2) how, when and why races mix; and (3) inspirational and biographical sources of great Black men and women. Rogers' research has deeply influenced all of my research.
  
  Rogers made it clear that Afrocentrists must (1) visit European museums where many artifacts of Africa which were stolen are now housed; (2) learn to speak and read more than one European language, so ; (3) the scholar should seek primary documents which must be reinterpreted to present the truth to the world. The greatest books written by Rogers include the best selling 100 Amazing Facts about the Negro, which gave the reader over 100 facts about the history of African people; and especially Sex and Race, a three volume series of books which discuss the world history of Blacks from ancient times to our modern age.
  
  Another AAS historian was Drusilla D. Houston of the state of Oklahoma. Houston's major work was the book Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire. In this book she shows that the civilizations of southern Arabia, Greece, India and Persia were founded by Africans from the Nile Valley and beyond. Houston had hoped to write another volume of this book but she died before it was completed.
  
  The fourth most important AAS africalogists after DuBois, Houston and Rogers was Leo Hansberry. Hansberry was born in 1894, and was the first historian to teach African studies at a major University in the world. Dr. Hansberry became interested in African history after reading DuBois'The Negro. this book led Hansberry to decide to learn more about Kush and ancient Ethiopia.
  
  In 1922, Hansberry went to Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he taught courses in African history. He never received proper support from the University, but he did influence many African-American and African scholars who studied under him. Professor Hansberry died in Chicago on November 3, 1965.
  
  Carter G. Woodson (1936,1949) following DuBois (1915) legitimized the writing of African history. In his premier books on Africa, Woodson (1936, 1949) illuminated the civilizations of Africa, and the rich cultural heritage of African people. Woodson is also credited with founding the Journal of Negro History, which published numerous articles on African history.
  
  John J. Jackson, was a self-trained anthropologist. He taught at universities on the eastcoast and in the midwest, including the Northeastern Illinois Center for Inner City Studies in Chicago, now called the Kemetic Institute.
  
  Jackson's most popular book is Introduction to African Civilization. In this book Jackson used old and new sources to discuss the role of Blacks in civilizations around the world. In his book he makes it clear that Africa and her people are the founders of world civilization.
  
  Jackson presents striking evidence that Indo-Europeans have played a major role in the destruction of African centers of civilization. He cites for example, the Romans partial destruction of the library of Alexander, and its later total destruction by fanatical Christians in A.D. 389. Prof. Jackson also discussed the Romans burned down the library of Carthage which contained 50,000 volumes in 146 B.C. And in Spain, Europeans destroyed great libraries of the Moors.
  
  By the 1960's Africalogical historical research, formerly the "preserve" of African Americans (DuBois, 1971 p.373), was beginning to be dominated by Europeans. The only AFROCENTRIC historian to come on the scene during this period was Dr. Joseph Ben-Jochannan.
  
  Ben-Jochannan is an historian and cultural-anthropologist. His major works are Black Man on the Nile, African Origin of the Major Western Religions, and Africa: Mother of western civilization. In these books Ben-Jochannan provides the reader with a wealth of information on the African origin of Egypt, and the African influence on many common civilizing elements found in Western societies today.
  
  French Speaking Afrocentrists
  
  Most of the contemporary dynamic historians and anthropolo-gists writing from the AFROCENTRIC perspective and making important original contributions to Africalogical research in Africa and the Caribbean speak French. These scholars were heavily influenced by the work of Diop.
  
  The FAACS Afrocentrists have their roots in Negritude. Aime Cesaire (1956) originated the term Negritude, which is a cultural expression of "Blackness". In a poem written during World War II, Cesaire coined the phrase "African personality". It is the idea of an original and unique personality peculiar to Africans, that manifest the foundation Afrocentrism in the African diaspora where French is spoken.
  
  Leopold Senghor of Senegal became a major proponent of Negritude. Senghor argued that the African emotional quality to life is different from the materialism of Europeans.
  
  Leopold Senghor not only accepted the idea of an "African Personality", he also helped develop the idea of "Africanity". Africanity is a word which relates to the entire African continent's cultural heritage (Fanon, 1967; Loventhal, 1972).
  
  Negritude has usually been described as "passive" by many social critics (Loventhal, 1972 p.283; Fanon, 1967 p.45). But one of the followers of this movement, Chiekh Anta Diop used the idea of "Africanity" to add a historical research component to negritude, that explained and discussed the African origin of Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization. Diop (1974, 1981) proved the African origin of Egyptian civilization and made it a major component of negritude.
  
  Diop established an important base of Africalogical research at the University of Senegal. Until Diop died in 1986, he was a major advocate of the continuity of African history from Egypt to the medieval African civilizations. He is one of the founders of the African Historical Science and Philosophy of history first practiced by DuBois and Rogers. Like J.A. Rogers, Diop called for scholars to stop dabbling here and there, and become well trained , pluridisciplinary specialists.
  
  Chiekh Anta Diop has made important contributions to linguistic theory in relation to African historiography. Diop's work illustrates that it is important for scholars to maintain a focus on the historical and linguistic factors which define the "personnalitè culturelle africaine" (Diop 1991, 227).
  
  Language is the sanctum sanctorum of Diop's Afrocentric historical method. The Diopian view of historiography combines the research of linguistics, history and psychology to interpret the cultural unity of African people.
  
  There are three components in the genetic model: 1) common physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages. (Winters 1989a) Diop over the years has brought to bear all three of these components in his illumination of Kemetic civilization (Diop 1974,1977,1978,1991).
  
  Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered (Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991).
  
  In the recovery of information concerning the African past, Diop promotes semantic anthropology, comparative linguistics and the study of Onomastics (Diagne 1981). Onomastics is the science of names (Diagne 1981). Diop has studied legends, placenames and religious cult terms to discover the unity of African civilization. The main thesis of Diop is that typonymy and ethnonymy of Africa point to a common cradle for Paleo-Africans in the Nile Valley (Diop, 1978, 67).
  
  In Precolonial Black Africa, Diop used ethnonyms to chart the migrations of African people in West Africa. And in The African Origin of Civilization, Diop used "analyses acculturaliste" or typological analysis to study the origin and spread of African cultural features from the Nile Valley to West Africa through his examination of toponyms (Diop 1974, 182-183). In the Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Diop discussed the common totems and religious terms many African ethnic groups share (Diop 1978, 124).
  
  This linguistic research has been based on linguistic classification or taxonomy. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based (Ruhlen 1994). Linguistic taxonomy is necessary for the identification of language families. The determination of language families give us the material to reconstruct the proto-language of a people and discover regular sound correspondences( Hock 1988; Crawley 1992; Bynon 1978; Lord 1966; Robins 1974).
  
  Diop is a strong supporter of the comparative linguistic method in the rediscovery of Paleo-African. The reconstruction of Paleo-African involves both reconstruction and recognition of regular sound correspondence. The goal of reconstruction is the discovery of the Proto-language of African people is the recovery of Paleo-African. To reconstruct a Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences.
  
  Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of genetically related languages.
  
  LINGUISTIC CONSTANCY
  
  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, 1988, 1992a, 1992b, 1993,).
  
  The political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa (Winters 1994). Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language Diop, 1987, 1991; Niane, 1984).
  
  The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since neolithic times (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985; Anselin 1992a, 1992b). This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.
  
  This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the continuity or stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:
  
  First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time (pp.153-154).
  
  In Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes, Diop wrote that:
  
  The permanence of these forms not only, constitute today a solid base...upon which...[we are to re-]construct diachronic African [languages], but obliges also a radical revision of these ideas, a priori...on the evolution of these languages in general (p.17).
  
  There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used Glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms.
  
  Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself (Labov 1965, 1972). Meillet (1926, p. 17) wrote that:
  
  Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.
  
  Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages.
  
  Diop's major linguistic effort has been the classification of Black African and Egyptian languages . Up until 1977 Diop's major area of interest were morphological and phonological similarities between Egyptian and Black African languages. Diop (1977, 77-84) explains many of his sound laws for the Egyptian-Black African connection. These sound laws have been further elaborated by Anselin (1989, 1992, 1993) and Obenga (1988, 1993b).
  
  Diop has noted that the reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about an ethnic group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologists make precise inferences about a linguistic group's cultural elements. In Obenga (1988) the Paleo-African terms for cattle, goat, sheep, rams and the monkey were reconstructed.
  
  Diop has contributed much to the extra-African linguistic relationship. He was a major proponent of the Dravidian-African relationship (Diop 1974, 116), and he illustrated the African substratum in Indo-European languages in relationship to cacuminal sounds and terms for social organiza-tion and culture (1974, 115). Diop (1978, 113) also recognized that in relation to Arabic words, after the suppression of the first consonant, there is often an African root. This is not surprising because Edward Blyden found evidence that the Arabic writing system was created by an African from the modern country we call Egypt.
  
  The major student of Diop is Obenga (1974, 1978,1995). Th. Obenga is a linguist and historian. He has done remarkable work in the reconstruction of Paleo-African and a brilliant study of the philosophical views of the Egyptians.
  
  Formerly the major work of Obenga was L'Afrique dans l'Antiquitie . In this book Th. Obenga discussed the African origin of Egypt and the cultural and linguistic unity of Blacks world wide.
  
  Obenga (1978a, 1978b, 1988) has shown the unity of ancient and modern African languages and the close relationship of ancient Egyptian to his own language Mbochi. And in The Peopling od ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of the Meroitic script, Obenga and Diop give a superb discussion of the reality of an African origin of Egyptian civilization.
  
  Obenga (1978b, 1988) concentrate on two areas of linguistic research. Firstly, he has shown striking affinities between Egyptian and Mbochi. Secondly, Obenga (1988, 1993) has been concerned with the reconstruction of Paleo-African and the shared grammatical features of Egyptian and Black African languages.
  
  In 1993, Obenga published Origine commune de l'Egyptien ancien du copte et des langues Negro Africaines modernes. This book provides a detailed discussion of the historical links between African and Egyptian languages. In Obenga (1993) African languages are divided into three Superfamilies the Black African-Egyptian , the Berber and the Khoisan languages.
  
  Obenga maintains that the Egyptian-Black African family is classified into the following subfamilies: Egyptian, Cushitic, Tchadian, Nilo-Saharan and the Niger-Kordofanian families. Most of these subfamilies of Egyptian-Black African were first grouped by Greenberg (1963).
  
  Obenga (1993) in addition to providing a detailed account of the Egyptian-Black African genetic connections also provides keen insight into the so called Afro-Asiatic family of language.
  
  He proves that the Egyptian language is closer to African languages than the non-African languages grouped in the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Recently, this theme was also taken up by Tounkara (1989), he explained how Diop's theory of an Egyptian-Black African language connection has more linguistic and historical support than the Afro-Asiatic hypothesis.
  
  Gilbert Ngom (1986) has done a fine examination of the correspondence between the Bantu, Duala and the ancient Egyptian language. Ngom (1986) elaborates on the Black African-Egyptian phonology. He also makes it clear that Egyptian is closer to the Black African languages, than the Berber and Semitic languages in syntax, morphology and phonology (Ngom, 1986 pp.48-52). Anselin (1989, 1993) provide an outstanding discussion of the affinity between the Egyptian and Black African verbal systems.
  
  >>>>>>
  
  The most interesting research inspired by Diop is in the area of semantic anthropology. Using linguistic data Anselin ( 1989, 1992, 1993) and Pfouma (1987) have compared Black African and Egyptian terms to illuminate the common royal heritage and religion shared by Blacks. Winters (1985a, 1985d, 1989, 1991) also used this method to confirm the unity between the African, the Dravidian, the Elamite and the Sumerian languages.
  
  Dr. Diop has called on Africalogical researchers to become pluridisciplinarians. A pluridisciplinary specialist is a person who is qualified to use more than one discipline, for example history, linguistics and etc., when researching aspects of African history and Africalogy in general. Two major Afrocentric pluridisciplinarians are Alain Anselin (1993) and Clyde Ahmad Winters (1989, 1994).
  
  Anselin is an AFROCENTRIC pluridisciplinarian researcher. Anselin is the Director of Studies at the Laboratory of Research the A.M.E.P., at Fort-de-France Martinique. He has written three important AFROCENTRIC works: La Question Peule, Le Mythe d'Europe, and Samba and numerous articles.
  
  In Samba, Alain Anselin illustrates how the corpus of Egyptian hieroglyphics explains not only the Egyptian civilization, but also the entire world of the Paleo-Africans. In this book following Winters (1985, 1991) he makes it clear that Kemetic civilization originated in the Fertile African Crescent (Anselin, 1992 pp.20-22). And that Black African and Kemetic civilization at its origination was unified from its foundations in the Sahara, up to its contemporary manifestations in the language and culture of Black Africans.
  
  In La Question Peule, Anselin again moves back to his theme of unity for Egyptian, West African and Dravidian languages, political traditions and culture. The unity between Dravidian and African cultures was also examined by Th. Obenga (1973), Anta Diop (1974), Cheikh Tidiane N'Diaye and Winters (1980a, 1985c, 1985d, 1986c, 1991a).
  
  Anselin (1982, p.190) provides a detailed discussion of the " Black Ageans". There is also a fine examination of the affinities between the Agean and Dravidian civilizations (Anselin , 1982 pp.135-149).
  
  Another pluridisiciplinarian Afrocentrist is Clyde Ahmad Winters. He is the only African-American attempting to confirm the theories of Diop in relation to the genetic unity of the Egyptian , Black African , Elamite, Sumerian and Dravidian languages. Winters' is mainly concerned with the unity of ancient old and new world Black civilizations (Winters 1985a,1985d, 1989) and decipherment of ancient Black writing systems used by these Africans (Winters 1985b). This led Winters to learn many foreign languages including French, Tamil , Malinke/Bambara, Chinese , Arabic, Otomi and more.
  
  Winters has used Diop's genetic model in his research which combines anthropological , linguistic and historical methods to confirm that the center for the rise of the originators of the Egyptian and Manding civilizations (1977, 1979b, 1986a, 1986f, 1983), the Magyar or Hungarian civilization (1984a, 1986e); the Dravidian civilization (1980a, 1981d, 1985c, 1985d 1986c, 1986d, 1986e, 1988a, 1989b) and the Sumerian and Elamite civilizations was the Fertile African Crescent of the highland regions of Middle/Saharan Africa (1984, 1985a, 1991, 1994). In addition he has explained how Blacks founded civilization in the Americas (Winters 1977a, 1981d, , 1983b, 1986); and East and Southeast Africa (1979, 1979a, 1980b, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1983c, 1983d, 1986c, 1987b).
  
  An important finding of Winters is that the ancestors of the Dravidian and Manding speaking people appear to have left Africa at the same time around 2600 B.C. (Winters 1985c). And that these people founded civilization in Europe , Elam, India and ancient China (1991a).
  
  Winters' (1988, 1989c,1990, 1991a), like Diop before him has also discussed (1) the African substratum in European languages; (2) explained the conflict between African people and Indo-European speaking people ; and (3) the loss of early African settlements in Europe to the contemporary European people due to natural catastrophes and wars after 1000 B.C. This research provides valuable source material for the elaboration of the African influence on European languages and the languages of East and Central Asia (Winters, 1989b, 1990, 1991b).
  
  During the research of Winters' (1985b) it was discovered that the Proto-Saharan people used a common writing system. Winters (1983) found that he could read the ancient inscriptions left by these people in the Sahara dating to 3000 B.C. A comparison of the Manding language and the Elamite, Sumerian and Dravidian languages confirmed there genetic unity.
  
  The evidence of a genetic relationship between the Manding languages, which was used to decipher the earliest Proto-Saharan writings and other languages spoken by the founders of civilization in India and Mesopotamia, led to the assumption that the writing systems used by these ancient founders of civilization could be deciphered. The confirmation of Diop's theory of linguistic constancy made it possible for to confirm this hypothesis and read the common signs used to write the Harappan script ( Winters, 1982b, 1984b, 1984d, 1984e, 1985b, 1987;2013a), the Minoan script (Winters,2013c)and the Olmec script (Winters, 1977a, 1977b, 1979b;2013e).
  
  The most important finding of Winters (1984,2013d) was the cognate language of Meroitic. Using the evidence presented by the Classical sources that the Kushites ruled empires in Africa and Asia, Winters (1984, 1988, 1989) illustrated that the cognate language of Meroitic, was the Tokharian language spoken by the Kushana people of Central Asia (Winters,2013f). Using the Kushana/Tokharian language many Meroitic inscriptions have been deciphered (Winters, 1984,1988, 1989, 1995a, 1995b,2013d, 2013f).
  
  Another important Afrocentrist is Molefi Asante at Temple University. Asante has been active in the field of Afrocentric studies for over twenty years. He is also founder, at Temple , of the major center of academic Afrocentrism outside of the University of Senegal when Diop was living.
  
  In numerous articles and books Asante ( 1988, 1990, 1987) has laid out the foundations of Africalogical research . Much of Asante's theoretical foundations of Afrocentrism is found in his book Kemet, Afrocentricity, and Knowledge. In this book Asante gives keen insight into the role of Egypt in the creation of an Africalogical humanities. He also shatters many of the long held myths perpetuated by Europeans that Africans failed to invent writing, and strong highly organized nation-states and empires.
  
  But he does not stop here in making a case for Africalogical research. He also explains and discusses European attitudes toward race and ethnicity in the United States.
  
  In addition to arguing persuasively for the establishment of Afrocentrism "as a legitimate response to the human condition" (Asante, 1990, p.5), Asante has written a fine introductory text on Egypt and other ancient African nations that can be used in Upper grades and High School. This text is called Classical Africa. In this timely book Asante explains the rise and fall of many African civilizations from ancient Egypt to the Western Sudani kingdom of Songhay.
  
  In conclusion, africalogical research, is not new, it has been conducted by Afro-Americans for over 150 years. African-American Afrocentrists dominated the field of African-American and African history from the 1870's up to the 1930's(DuBois 1971).
  
  Beginning in the 1940's "established" Euro-American writers became interested in African-American history; and in the 1960's as many African nations became independent other European scholars began to dominate the interpretation and writing of African history. These scholars began to decide on the criterions that make the "proper" research of ancient African history.
  
  By the 1970"s many Afrocentrists in French speaking Africa began to assert themselves, and write highly readable and intelligent prose on the African origin of Egypt and the genetic unity of the Black African and Egyptian languages. This group of researchers were complemented by scholars like Ben Jochannon and C.A. Winters. Today the research efforts of both the FAACS and AAS afrocentrists continue to confirm the great history of African people from a falsificationist perspective.
  
  
  
  REFERENCES
  
  Anselin, A. (1981). Le Question Peule. Paris: Editions Karthala.
  
  Anselin, A. (1982). Le Mythe D' Europe. Paris: Editions
  
  Anthropos.
  
  Anselin, A. (1989). pour une morpologie elementaire du Negro-Africain, Carbet, no.6, pp.98-105.
  
  Anselin, A. (1992a). L'ibis du savoir-l'ecriture et le mythe en ancienne Egypte, ANKH, no.1, pp.79-88.
  
  Anselin, A. (1992b). Samba. Guadeloupe: Editions de L'Unite de Recherche-Action Guadeloupe.
  
  Anselin, A.(1993). Anamneses. Guadeloupe: Editions de l'UNIRAG.
  
  Armstrong,R.G. (1962). Glottochronology and African linguistics. Journal of African History,3(2), 283-290.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete.(1987). The Afrocentricity Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton: Africa World Press.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete. (1990). Kemet, Afrocentricity, and Knowledge. Trenton: Africa World Press.
  
  Asante, Molefi Kete. (1994). Classical Africa. Maywood, N.J.: The Peoples Publishing Group, Inc.
  
  Baines, J. (1991, August 11). Was civilization made in Africa? The New York Times Review of Books, 12-13.
  
  Boas, F. (1911). The mind of primitive man. New York.
  
  Bynon,T. (1978). Historical linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.
  
  Cèsaire, A. (1956). Cahier d'un retour au pays Natal.
  
  Paris: Presence Africaine.
  
  Crawley,T. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  
  Delafosse,M. (1901). La Langue Mandigue. Paris.
  
  Delany, M.R. (1879). Principia of Ethnology: Origins of Races and Color. Philadelphia, Penn.
  
  Diagne,P. (1981). In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.), General history of Africa I: Methodology and African prehistory (233-260). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
  
  Diop, C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Westport, Conn.:Lawrence Hill and Company.
  
  Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
  
  Diop, C.A. (1978). Precolonial Black Africa. Wesport, Conn. :Lawrence Hill and Company.
  
  Diop, C.A. 1981. A methodology for the study of migrations. In African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, by UNESCO. (Unesco: Paris) 86--110.
  
  Diop, C.A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism. Brooklyn,N.Y.:
  
  Lawrence Hill Books.
  
  DuBois, W.E.B. (1915). The Negro. New York.
  
  DuBois, W.E.B. (1946). The World and Africa. New York.
  
  DuBois, W.E.B. (1971). The American Negro Intelligentsia. In Apropos of Africa, (Ed.) by Adelaide Hill and Martin Kilson, (362-374) New York: Anchor Books.
  
  Ehret,C. (1988). Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift. Antiquity, 62, 564-574.
  
  Ehret,C. & Posnansky (Eds.). (1982). The Archaeological and linguistic reconstruction of African history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  
  Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skin, white Masks. New York: Grove Press.
  
  Frobenius, L. (1913). The voice of Africa. 2 vols. New York.
  
  Hock,H.H. (1988). Principles of historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
  
  Johnston,H.H. (1910). The Negro in the New World. New York.
  
  Johnston, J.W. (1971). Africa at the peace table and the descendants of Africans in American democracy. In Apropos of Africa, (Ed.) by Adelaide Hill and Martin Kilson, (pp.384-392)
  
  New York: Anchor Books.
  
  Labov,W.(1965). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.
  
  Labov.,W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stokwell,R.P. and Macaulay, R.K.S. (Eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory (101-171). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  
  Lefkowitz, M. (1992, February 10). Not out of Africa. The New Republic, 29-36.
  
  Lord,R. (1966). Comparative Linguistics. London: St. Paul's House.
  
  Lowenthal, D. (1972). West Indian Societies. New York: Oxford University.
  
  Mbiti, J. S. 1970. African religions and Philosophy. Garden City: Anchor Press.
  
  Meillet, A. 1926. Introduction à l'etude comparatif des languages Indo-Europeennes. Paris.
  
  Moitt,B. (1989) CHIEKH Anta Diop and the African diaspora: Historical continuity and socio-cultural symbolism. Presence Africaine, 149/150, 347-360.
  
  McIntosh, S. K. & McIntosh, R. (1983). Forgotten Tells of Mali. Expedition, 35-47.
  
  Ngom,G. (1986). Rapports egypte-Afrique noire: aspects linguistiques, Presence Africaine, no.137/138, pp.25-57.
  
  Niane,D.T.(Ed.). (1984). Introduction. General History of Africa IV (1-14). London: Heinemann Educational Books.
  
  Obenga, T. (1973). L'Afrique dans l'antiquite-Egypte pharaonique-Afrique noire. Paris: Presence Africaine.
  
  Obenga, T. (1978a). Africa in antiquity, Africa Quarterly, 18, no.1, pp.1-15.
  
  Obenga,T. (1978b). The genetic relationship between Egyptian (ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and modern African languages. In
  
  UNESCO (Ed.), The peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script (65-72). Paris: UNESCO.
  
  Obenga, T. (1988). Esquisses d'une histoire culturelle de l'Afrique par la lexicologie, Presence Africaine, no.140, pp.1-25.
  
  Obenga, T. (1992). Le chamito-semitique n'existe pas, ANKH , no.1, pp.51-58.
  
  Obenga, T. (1993a). Origine commune de l'Egyptien Ancien du Copte et des langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.
  
  Obenga, T. Origine Commune de l"Egyptien ancien du coptes et des langues negro-africaines modernes. Paris: Editions l'Harmattan.
  
  Olderogge, L. (1981). Migrations and ethnic and linguistic differentiations. In J. Ki-Zerbo (Ed.),General History of Africa I: Methodology and African History (271-278). Paris: UNESCO.
  
  Pawley,A. & Ross,M. (1993). Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 425-459.
  
  Pfouma, O. L'abeille royale, Carbet, no.6, pp.98-105.
  
  Robins, R.H. (1974). General Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana State University Press.
  
  Ruhlen, M. 1994. The origin of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  
  Senghor, L.S. (1961). Negritude and African socialism, African Affairs, pp.20-25.
  
  Toukara, B. (1989). Problematique du comparatisme , egyptien ancien/langues africaines (wolof), Presence Africain, no.149/150,
  
  pp.313-320.
  
  Welmers, W. (1968). Niger Congo-Mande. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 7,113-140.
  
  Williams, B. (1987). The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul:Cemetery L. Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1977). "The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American Writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2, (1977), pages 941-967.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1977a) "Islam in Early North and South America", Al-Ittihad) .
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (January 1979b). "Trade between East Africa and China", Afrikan Mwalimu, pp. 25-31.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1979c). "Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilization 1, no1 , pp. 61-97.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1980a). "The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong:Asian Research Service.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1980b) "A Note on the Unity of Black Civilizations in Africa, IndoChina, and China",PISAS 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1981a) "The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1,pp. 103-110.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1981b). "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) pp.789- 807.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1981c). "Further Thoughts on Japanese Dravidian Connection",Dravidian Language Association News 5, no9, pp. 1-4.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (December, 1981/ January 1982a) "Mexico's Black Heritage", The Black Collegian,pp. 76-84.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad, (1982b) "The Harappan script Deciphered :Proto-Dravidian Writing of the Indus Valley", P Third ISAS,1981,(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) pp.925-936.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1982c). Lectures in Africana: Kushite Diaspora, Chicago: Uthman dan Fodio Institute.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad (1983a).The Ancient Manding Script",In Blacks in Science:Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick:Transaction Books ) pages 208-214.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1983b) "Les fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete", Afrique Histoire, no8,pp. 13-18.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1983c). "Blacks in Ancient China,Part 1:The Founders of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1,no2. Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1983d). "Possible Relationship between the Manding and Japanese", Papers in Japanese Linguistics 9, pp. 151-158.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters. (January 1984). "Magyar and Proto-Saharan Relationship",Fighter (Hungarian language Newspaper) Cleveland,Ohio , p.2.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad(1984a). The Indus Valley Writing is Proto-Dravidian",Journal of Tamil Studies , no 25 , pp.50-64.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (Juin 1984b). "A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d"Information Meroitiques , No.23 , pages 18-21.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad(June 1984c) "Further Notes on Japanese and Tamil ,International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 13, no2, pp. 347-353.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1984d). "The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic Seals", Tamil Civilization 2, no1 , pp. 1-8.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1984e). "The Harappan Writing of the Copper Tablets", Journal of Indian History LXll, nos.1-3, pp. 1-5.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985a). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians", Tamil Civilization 3, no.1 , pp. 1-9.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985b). "The Indus Valley Writing and related Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC", India Past and Present 2, no.1 ( 1985b), pages 13-19.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1985c). "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils", Journal of Tamil Studies , no27 , pp. 65-92.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1985d). "The genetic Unity between the Dravidian, Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages", Sixth ISAS ,1984,(Hong Kong:Asian Research Service) pp. 1413-1425.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande", The Mankind Quarterly 27, no1 , pp. 77-96.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986b). "Blacks in Ancient America", Colorlines 3, no.2 , pp. 26-27.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986c). "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2,pp. 225-241.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad Winters. (1986d). The Dravidian Origin of the Mountain and Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9, no.2 , pages 144-148.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1986e). "Dravidian and Magyar /Hungarian", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 15, no.2.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986f). "The Rise of Islam in the Western Sahara",Topaz 2, no.1 , pp. 5-15.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1987). The Harappan Script. Journal of Tamil Studies, no. 30, pp.89-111.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1988). "The Dravidian and Manding Substratum in Tokharian",Central Asiatic Journal 32, nos. 1-2, pp. 131-141.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1986b). Common African and Dravidian
  
  place name elements, South Asian Anthropologist, 9, no.1 pp.33-36.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989)"Tamil,Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics ,18, no.l.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989b). "Cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de l'ecriture meroitique",Cabet: Revue Martinique de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, pp. 149-152.
  
  Winters,Clyde Ahmad. (1989c). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas' "The Coming of the Aryans". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 18, no2 , pp. 98-127.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1990). "The Dravido Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal 34, no1-2, pp. 120-144.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991). The Proto-Sahara. The Dravidian Encyclopaedia. (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume 1.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1991b). Linguistic evidence for Dravidian influence on trade and animal domestication in Central and East Asia, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20, no.2, pp.91-102.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1994). Afrocentrism: A valid Frame of References. Journal of Black Studies 25, no.2 , pp.170-190.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1995a). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nubica V. http://www.scribd.com/doc/91808168/The-Inscriptions-of-Tanyidamani
  
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1995b). The meroitic chamber inscription. forthcoming Nubica IV und Nibica V.
  
  Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (n.d.). Meroitic inscriptions from Karanog. forthcoming Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
  
  Winters, Clyde ,(2013a). THE decipherment of Indus Valley Writing. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4820718/The-Decipherment-of-the-Indus-Valley-Writing
  
  Winters, Clyde.(2013b). Unofficial history of Tamil. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2565099/Unofficial-History-of-Tamil-Writing
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013c). Ancient African Writing Systems in Middle Africa. http://www.scribd.com/doc/2565099/Unofficial-History-of-Tamil-Writing
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013d). Meroitic Language. http://www.scribd.com/doc/112999049/Meroitic-Language
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013e). Olmec Writing and Language. http://www.scribd.com/doc/92620602/Olmec-Writing-and-Language
  
  Winters,Clyde. (2013f). Tocharian the Cognate language of Meroitic. http://www.scribd.com/doc/91594296/Tocharian-the-Cognate-Language-of-Meroitic
  
  
  Yurco, F. (1989). "Were the ancient Egyptians Black?", Biblical Archaeological Review 15, no5 , pages 24-29,58.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
@ Dr. Winters, we have to remember that archaeology will never tell you what languages a people spoke unless they actually wrote on the archaeological artifacts. Secondly, the Egyptians, in the Famine Stele, inform us of their ancestry from the beginnings of the Nile. However, this could be only a segment of the population. We know Egyptians came from all routes. However, the people themselves discussed their ancestors along the Nile, not in the West in the Sahara, although climatology and archaeology informs us migrations there.

Thirdly, a lingua franca is not the same as a mixed languaged or Creole, which I think you are hitting at. English or French, for example, are lingua francas of Africa, but they are distinct languages that belong to a people and have an origin: even with the many borrowings. Egyptian is no different.

And again, there are SOME traditions that come from the Sahara and there are others that do not. Again, their orientation and the land of their ancestors was to the South. Some claim ancestors to the West (land of Yam which might be in Sudan; see Robert Buval's _Black Genesis_). It is complex.

I have pretty much everyone's analysis on the origins of these languages and the most convincing is that of the major phylums originating in the East along the Nile. Even you cite Welmer's who even suggested Niger-Congo may have originated along the Nile. It would make sense if it is argued that NC is really a branch of Nilo Saharan, which originates along the Nile.

Much of ancient Egyptian cultural motifs and concepts I can find in central Africa: including the major deities of (e.g., Ra, Amen, Osiris, Isis, etc.). Again, no amount of DNA or archaeological evidence is going to demonstrate what languages people spoke.

---

Central Africa is not East Africa. Most researchers are of the opinion that Nilo-Saharan speakers belonged to the African Aqualithic, which was a Saharan and Sahel culture.

Ancient Egyptian was not a pidgin language, it was a Koine .A Koine develops as a result of people speaking a variety of speech who are in contact with each other that are mutually intelligible dialects. Languages that are considered by their speakers to be of equal cultural and political prestige, prefer to use a Koine, so as not to show disrespect to the various speakers of related languages.

A good example of a Koine today is Swahili. Swahili allows diverse Bantu and Arabic speaking populations to converse in a mutually intellible language.

As a result, the people create a Koine to serve as a lingua franca to unite the various people in the state of Egypt. The ethnic variety of the Egyptian people , unified by the Egyptian language is why I call Egypt a pan-African civilization.

This view is supported by the history of Egypt. We know that the Sepats or nomes of Egypt were composed of various ethnic groups.





The linguistic research indicates that the Egyptians spoke a variety of mutually inteligible languages, a view confirmed by the research of Obenga, Diop and others that show that Egyptian is genetically related to various Niger-Congo languages, to name a few. This is why they refer to the Black-African Egyptian Super family, for the speakers of African languages minus the Berbers and Khoisan. Ancient Egyptian was probally a deregionalized language that provide a vehicle for communication for the variuos nationalities making up the Egyptian nation.


.
 

---

Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
@ Dr. Winters, we have to remember that archaeology will never tell you what languages a people spoke unless they actually wrote on the archaeological artifacts. Secondly, the Egyptians, in the Famine Stele, inform us of their ancestry from the beginnings of the Nile. However, this could be only a segment of the population. We know Egyptians came from all routes. However, the people themselves discussed their ancestors along the Nile, not in the West in the Sahara, although climatology and archaeology informs us migrations there.

Thirdly, a lingua franca is not the same as a mixed languaged or Creole, which I think you are hitting at. English or French, for example, are lingua francas of Africa, but they are distinct languages that belong to a people and have an origin: even with the many borrowings. Egyptian is no different.

And again, there are SOME traditions that come from the Sahara and there are others that do not. Again, their orientation and the land of their ancestors was to the South. Some claim ancestors to the West (land of Yam which might be in Sudan; see Robert Buval's _Black Genesis_). It is complex.

I have pretty much everyone's analysis on the origins of these languages and the most convincing is that of the major phylums originating in the East along the Nile. Even you cite Welmer's who even suggested Niger-Congo may have originated along the Nile. It would make sense if it is argued that NC is really a branch of Nilo Saharan, which originates along the Nile.

Much of ancient Egyptian cultural motifs and concepts I can find in central Africa: including the major deities of (e.g., Ra, Amen, Osiris, Isis, etc.). Again, no amount of DNA or archaeological evidence is going to demonstrate what languages people spoke.

---

Central Africa is not East Africa. Most researchers are of the opinion that Nilo-Saharan speakers belonged to the African Aqualithic, which was a Saharan and Sahel culture.

Ancient Egyptian was not a pidgin language, it was a Koine .A Koine develops as a result of people speaking a variety of speech who are in contact with each other that are mutually intelligible dialects. Languages that are considered by their speakers to be of equal cultural and political prestige, prefer to use a Koine, so as not to show disrespect to the various speakers of related languages.

A good example of a Koine today is Swahili. Swahili allows diverse Bantu and Arabic speaking populations to converse in a mutually intellible language.

As a result, the people create a Koine to serve as a lingua franca to unite the various people in the state of Egypt. The ethnic variety of the Egyptian people , unified by the Egyptian language is why I call Egypt a pan-African civilization.

This view is supported by the history of Egypt. We know that the Sepats or nomes of Egypt were composed of various ethnic groups.





The linguistic research indicates that the Egyptians spoke a variety of mutually inteligible languages, a view confirmed by the research of Obenga, Diop and others that show that Egyptian is genetically related to various Niger-Congo languages, to name a few. This is why they refer to the Black-African Egyptian Super family, for the speakers of African languages minus the Berbers and Khoisan. Ancient Egyptian was probally a deregionalized language that provide a vehicle for communication for the variuos nationalities making up the Egyptian nation.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
when you say deregionalized you mean it was a Pidgin language, correct? I believe that is how Diop characterized it. Especially given it didn't seem to have a huge numbers of words in it, characteristic of other pidgin languages.

---

quote:

---

Unlike creoles and pidgins, koines are considered to be genetically related to the language varieties from which they have evolved. That is, they remain dialects of the primary languages to which they are related grammatically and lexically (in terms of vocabulary). Since no genetically unrelated languages were involved in the contacts that produced them, the structures of koines are not as drastically divergent from those of their ancestor languages as those of creoles and pidgins.
Koines may be written or spoken. Historical examples of koines include Standard Macedonian, the Italian of late 14th-century Naples, and the language of northern China in the 7th–10th centuries. It is assumed that koines also evolved in the earliest British colonies in North America, Australia, and New Zealand in response to the different metropolitan dialects that the colonists brought with them. Analogous varieties must have evolved in colonial Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Dutch settlements, which accounts partly for why the colonial non-creole varieties of the relevant European languages diverged from their metropolitan counterparts. In cases where a koine and a creole have evolved out of the same language (as with early colonial English and Gullah), the koine (rather than its metropolitan ancestor dialects or languages) is assumed to have been the starting point for both. Some argue that the formation of colonial-era koines started in European port cities where speakers of related dialects met before emigrating to the colonies.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/321152/koine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate

You will have to read his chapter VI to get how all of this breaks down. From the Table of Contents:

---

quote:

---

VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361
VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362
VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365
VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367
VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370

---

quote:

---

It is argued by Obenga (1992: 54-57) and Bernal (2006: 262-267) that the Greek word sophos, from where we get the word philosophy (lover of wisdom), derives from the ancient Egyptian word sbA “wise, intelligent, judicious, teach, teaching, school, guidance, direction, to tend, and surveying instrument” (Coptic sbō “teaching, education, intelligence”; sabe “wise, intelligent, judicious”; sbui “disciple, apprentice”; seb “intelligent, cunning”; sbo “to learn, teach”). In Bambara we have subaa “initiated teacher and student, one versed in hidden knowledge only known to initiates” ; Bantu ziba, libe, dziba, zhiba, seba, etc., “knowledge, wisdom, diviner, physician, one who knows, is an expert in, teach, have intercourse, converse with the spirits, priest, magus” (see Wanger, 1935: 202-204); Egyptian sAbwt “intelligence, knowledge, cleverness, wisdom, ability.”

---

quote:

---

The s-b form of the word in Niger-Congo is a loan. The word in Egyptian, sbA, consists of two morphemes: the s- causative prefix + the root (b-l). The s- causative is fossilized in this Egyptian term since predynastic times. The root can be seen in PAA *bar "see, know"; Semitic *bVrVy- "see, examine" (Akkadian: barû; Arabic: bry [-i-]; Jibbali: ebrer); Egyptian br "see" (Coptic: *belle 'blind': Bhr belle, Shd bolle); C.Chadic *bur- "think, consider, remember" (Gude: bǝǝrǝ 1, bǝǝrǝ-tǝ 2 [Hs]; Gudu: bùr-ínà 2 [Kr N390]); Saho-Afar: *bar- "learn" (Afar (Danakil): bar); Lower E.Cushitic *bar- "learn" (Somali: baro); Dahalo (Sanye): ḅar- "know." In Cushitic the causative is -is and it is suffixed to the root: Cushitic baris. In ciLuba-Bantu it is –pàdisha “teach, learn, instruct, view, introduce.” The causative in ciLuba is -ish and is suffixed in Bantu. This is a clue that the s-b form is a loan. To “teach” in the African mind is to “cause” (s-, -is, -ish) + “to see, know” (*bVr).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:

You can detect these things by knowing and demonstrating common sound change motivations, and being able to detect archaic features and sounds. All of this is possible with the comparative method.

---

quote:

---

I've already agreed that some of the Egyptians came from the Sahara. Not all of the Egyptians came from there. Many were indigenous to what became Egypt. You keep forgetting some key factors in Egyptian history.

1) Egypt had indigenous people, living there since the Out of Africa event (as this was one of the routes)

2) Others moved in from the Sahara and from the south

3) Egypt was conquered by a people from the South as attested by Diodorus Siculus in his Histories Book III and by the Narmer Palette.

As a result of being conquered, forcefully, there was no gentle blending of languages. There was a dominant group, who spoke the dominant language. ciKam was that language.

---

Lets discuss these arguments. Argument 1) Egypt had an indigenous people. You mention the fact that there were already people living in Egypt when it was conquered by Narmar. You are correct. These people were the Anu, or pygmy people who today live in the forest of Central Africa/Congo and etc. We do not know what language the Anu spoke, the Egyptian language is associated with the people who conquered Egypt.

Argument 2) Others moved in from the Sahara and from the south. This is correct. But one thing you overlook is that many of the Saharan sites were located south of what was to become Upper Egypt, in the Saharan highland.

This means that the founders Egypt would have been both from the South and the Sahara.



The founders of ancient Egypt were Agro-pastoral people. These people lived in the Green Sahara. I call these people Proto-Saharans. They were the ancestors of the Egyptians, Dravidians, Elamites and Sumerians. In history they were called Kushites. These Proto-Saharans formerly lived in the Maa civilization. The Proto-Saharans were an Agro-pastoral people who raised cattle and cultivated crops.


Domesticated cattle sites

The Fertile African Crescent is the Saharan Highland region which appears Crescent shaped. It was in this area that we find the Ounanian culture which I believe was the place of origin for the Niger-Congo speakers.



The sites in the Fertile African Crescent are south of what was to become ancient Egypt. Naturally they would have entered the Nile Valley from the South as mentioned in Egyptian traditions. This is evident when we look at the location of Nabta Playa on the map.

Nabta Playa

The “Ounanian” of Northern Mali, Southern Algeria, Niger, and central Egypt at ca. 10 ka is partly defined by a distinctive type of arrow point .



The original Niger-Congo speakers probably belonged to the C-Group people. The C-Group people would have lived in many of the nomes of Upper Egypt.


It was in the Fertile African Crescent that the Maa Civilization originated. It was in ancient Maa, that the people later to become the: Egyptians, Mande, Elamites, Sumerians and Dravidians lived.

See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBb-sBoR0ts

Book:



Blog

http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2012/06/fertile-african-crescent.html


Argument 3, is that the Narmar Palette indicates that the conquerors came from the South.



On the palette we find four standard bearers who are carrying two falcon standards, a dog, wolf or jackal standard and what has been interpreted as a royal placenta. These standard barers with varying totems, suggest to me that they represented the various ethnic groups which Namar led to conquerer Egypt. This suggest that Narmar when he came into Egypt did not lead a group dominated by one tribe, he led a confederation of tribes. And as we know from later Egyptian history, each Nome, of Egypt often had their own god(s) and Totem, eventhough the high god of the ruling dynasty often was recognized as the leading God of the Egyptians, e.g., Ra or Ammon/Amma.

Wally has noted that

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[qb]
Note that these Ntr totemic names, when used to designate a group, the name comes to
mean some variation of "people", ie:

Akan (in Akan) = first people

Oromo (in Oromo) = people, resurrected human beings

Tutsi (in Kirundi) = people of wealth, first people
Ethnic names in the Mdu Ntr

• Tutsi
  Tutsi "the assembled gods"; "all of them (gods)"
  
  Akan
  Akan - the name of a god
  Akaniu - a class of gods like Osiris
  
  Fante
  Fante - "he of the nose" - a name of Thoth - one of the 42 judges in the Hall of Osiris ("Shante" in modern Egyptian)
  
  Hausa
  Hosa - a singing god
  
  Yoruba
  Ourbaiu - great of souls, a title of gods or kings
  Ouruba - Great God of soul
  
  The permutations of names of such folks as the Wolof or the Fulani are so many, that it requires the effort of those who speak the language, to properly interpret the names -ie, Djoloff, Oulof, etc. and then look for their meanings in Budge's dictionary...

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:

You can detect these things by knowing and demonstrating common sound change motivations, and being able to detect archaic features and sounds. All of this is possible with the comparative method.

---

Yes you can detect archaic features by using comparative linguistic on modern languages or written records of dead languages. Thus, by studying modern language and written records you can generate a proto-language. In this case proto-Negro-Egyptian. But you can't detect grammatical phases within that proto-Negro-Egyptian language!?! (I assume the Archaic, pre-classical, classical and post classical Negro-Egyptians languages are all descendants from one another in that order (and not different branches off a more earlier and global supra phylum).)

---

quote:

---

Scholars group the Egyptian language into six major chronological divisions:[10]

Archaic Egyptian language (before 2600 BC, the language of the Early Dynastic Period)

Old Egyptian language (2686 BC – 2181 BC, the language of the Old Kingdom)

Middle Egyptian language (2055 BC – 1650 BC), characterizing Middle Kingdom (2055 BC – 1650 BC, but enduring through the early 18th Dynasty until the Amarna Period (1353 BC), and continuing on as a literary language into the 4th century AD).

Late Egyptian language (1069 BC – 700 BC, characterizing the Third Intermediate Period (1069 BC – 700 BC), but starting earlier with the Amarna Period (1353 BC)).

Demotic (7th century BC – 5th century AD, Late Period through Roman times)

Coptic (1st century AD – 17th century AD, early Roman times to early modern times)

---

quote:

---

VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361
VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362
VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365
VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367
VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
How is that logic so? For example, let's assume the current consensus is correct about Niger-Congo, for instance. Bantu is believed to be a sub-branch of Benu-Congo. Let's go to Heine and Nurse (2000: 31).

We have:

Proto-Benue-Congo

Then . . .

West Benue-Congo < > East Benue-Congo

W.Benue-Congo gives way to Yoruboid, Edoid, Akokoid, Akpes, Ayere-Ahan, Nupoid, Oko, Idomoid.

E.Benue_Congo gives way to Central Nigerian, Ukaan and Bantoid-Cross.

CN gives way to Kainji, N.W. Plateau, Beromic, Central Plateau, S.E. Plateu, Tarok, Jukunoid.

No subbranches of Ukaan.

Bantoid-Cross gives way to Cross River, Bendi, Delta-Cross and Bantoid from which Bantu derives.

Do you see how many layers we have before we get to Bantu? We have four layers above Bantu, that means 4 Proto-Stages before we get to Bantu.

Proto-Benue-Congo itself is a branch of Proto-East-Volta-Congo (Heine & Nurse, 2000: 18). There is a Western branch of that and both are sub-branches of Proto-Volto-Congo, which itself is decendent from Proto-Dogon-Congo; which itself is decendent of Proto-Ijo-Congo, where Ijo branched off into its own family. Proto-Ijo-Congo is descendant of Proto-Mande-Atlantic-Congo, which itself is a descendant of Proto-Niger-Congo. So lets see the order again in descending order:

Proto-Niger-Congo
Proto-Mande-Atlantic-Congo
Proto-Ijo-Congo
Proto-Dogon-Congo
Proto-Volto-Congo
Proto-Benue-Congo
East Benue-Congo
Bantoid-Cross
Bantoid
Bantu

Saying that we can't reconstruct pre-proto-languages is not a linguistic argument. In the case above, for example, Proto-Niger-Congo would be Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Bantu. Negro-Egyptian-Archaic is only like 4 layers up. If we can't reconstruct the stages prior to a proto-stage, then there is no point of reconstructions at all as all renderings would be false and of no value. Most languages of Indo-European didn't have written records, yet they were able to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European. The same has been done with Native-American languages with no writing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:

Do you see how many layers we have before we get to Bantu? We have four layers above Bantu, that means 4 Proto-Stages before we get to Bantu.

---

quote:

---

So lets see the order again in descending order:

Proto-Niger-Congo
Proto-Mande-Atlantic-Congo
Proto-Ijo-Congo
Proto-Dogon-Congo
Proto-Volto-Congo
Proto-Benue-Congo
East Benue-Congo
Bantoid-Cross
Bantoid
Bantu

Saying that we can't reconstruct pre-proto-languages is not a linguistic argument. In the case above, for example, Proto-Niger-Congo would be Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Bantu. Negro-Egyptian-Archaic is only like 4 layers up.

---

quote:

---

If we can't reconstruct the stages prior to a proto-stage, then there is no point of reconstructions at all as all renderings would be false and of no value. Most languages of Indo-European didn't have written records, yet they were able to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European. The same has been done with Native-American languages with no writing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So you need to compare the linguistic/grammatical features of modern Wolof, Yoruba, Shona and Zulu to create a hierarchy of proto-languages. We don't have that luxury with archaic, pre-classical, classical, and post-classical Negro-Egyptian languages as those languages (beside post-classical) didn't leave distinct modern representatives or distinct written records to show differences and similarities between one another. [/b]

EDIT: For the records, I presume there's something I don't understand in the hierarchy of Negro-Egyptian proposed by Mboli (since I don't have the book in my hand). I view them as successive evolution leading to the Post-classical Negro-Egyptian language. I view each phases (beside post-classical) as leaving us no modern descendants or written records. I'm not 100% sure it's what Mboli is telling us here.

---

You do not create a "hierarchy of Proto-languages" in Historical linguistics, you reconstruct the Proto-Language of the Super-Family and the proto-language of the subgroups in the Super family of language.

In Historical linguistics the goals of comparative and internal reconstruction differ. Comparative reconstruction seeks to recover the prehistoric linguistics elements of a language or group of languages and establish a genetic relationship between or among language speakers. Linguistic reconstruction is used to establish specific relationships between and among language speakers.

Internal Reconstruction is used to compare languages with corresponding forms--that must be attested by a review of earlier stages of a language documented in text. Having text of earlier stages of a language for comparative purposes provides credibility to the methods used in internal reconstructions. Thisn is why many of the reconstruction proposed by Saussure of Proto-Indo European were not empirically confirmed until the discovery of Hittite.

To confirm a genetic relationship you must reconstruct the proto-language. A proto-language is a term used to refer to the earliest form of a language established by means of the comparative method of reconstruction.





Reconstruction of the proto-language allows us to discover the superordinate proto-language (SPL) which represents the 'mother language'of a Super Family of languages. It can also lead to the establishment of reconstructed descendant languages closely related to one-another that form a subgroup in the Super Family of languages like Proto-Indo-European, which would represent a intermediate proto-language (IPL).




As a result, we can reconstruct the Proto-language of the Super Family: Negro/Black African-Egyptian (BAE) the SPL, while reconstructing the proto-language of the the languages in each subgroup, e.g., Mande, which includes a variety of dialects and represent the IPLs. But neither Proto-Bantu or Proto-Mande forms any sort of hierarchy for BAE, the Mande and Bantu language families are simply sub-groups in the much larger BAE Super Family of African languages.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
There is no way Mboli can claim he has reconstructed the various grammatical stages of Negro-Egyptien, because we don't have written text for the various proposed stages of the languages classified in Negro-Egyptien.

Mboli’s view is that there is

quote:

---

VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361
VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362
VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365
VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367
VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So you need to compare the linguistic/grammatical features of modern Wolof, Yoruba, Shona and Zulu to create a hierarchy of proto-languages. We don't have that luxury with archaic, pre-classical, classical, and post-classical Negro-Egyptian languages as those languages (beside post-classical) didn't leave distinct modern representatives or distinct written records to show differences and similarities between one another. [/b]

EDIT: For the records, I presume there's something I don't understand in the hierarchy of Negro-Egyptian proposed by Mboli (since I don't have the book in my hand). I view them as successive evolution leading to the Post-classical Negro-Egyptian language. I view each phases (beside post-classical) as leaving us no modern descendants or written records. I'm not 100% sure it's what Mboli is telling us here.

---

You do not create a "hierarchy of Proto-languages" in Historical linguistics, you reconstruct the Proto-Language of the Super-Family and the proto-language of the subgroups in the Super family of languages.

In Historical linguistics the goals of comparative and internal reconstruction differ. Comparative reconstruction seeks to recover the prehistoric linguistics elements of a language or group of languages and establish a genetic relationship between or among language speakers. Linguistic reconstruction is used to establish specific relationships between and among language speakers.

Internal Reconstruction is used to compare languages with corresponding forms--that must be attested by a review of earlier stages of a language documented in text. Having text of earlier stages of a language for comparative purposes provides credibility to the methods used in internal reconstructions. Thisn is why many of the reconstruction proposed by Saussure of Proto-Indo European were not empirically confirmed until the discovery of Hittite.

To confirm a genetic relationship you must reconstruct the proto-language. A proto-language is a term used to refer to the earliest form of a language established by means of the comparative method of reconstruction.





Reconstruction of the proto-language allows us to discover the superordinate proto-language (SPL) which represents the 'mother language'of a Super Family of languages. It can also lead to the establishment of reconstructed descendant languages closely related to one-another that form a subgroup in the Super Family of languages like Proto-Indo-European, which would represent a intermediate proto-language (IPL).




As a result, we can reconstruct the Proto-language of the Super Family: Negro/Black African-Egyptian (BAE) the SPL, while reconstructing the proto-language of the the languages in each subgroup, e.g., Mande, which includes a variety of dialects and represent the IPLs. But neither Proto-Bantu or Proto-Mande forms any sort of hierarchy for BAE, the Mande and Bantu language families are simply sub-groups in the much larger BAE Super Family of African languages.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
I actually have this book and it is excellent. Here is Mboli's reconstruction and new language models.



It is totally different from what you will read in most linguistic literature. He keeps Obenga's Negro-Egyptian, but Proto-Negro-Egyptian breaks up into two dialects: bere and beer. These are based on how the vowels are treated by each group, as well as the prefixes and suffixes. Excellent work.

He also reaffirms something I've been saying on this very forum for a number of years now, that Coptic is not the last stage of Egyptian. It is a totally different language.

---

What does the expression "post-classical" means? Is there a "classical" or "pre-classical" phase to the Negro-Egyptian language?

---

quote:

---

L'analyse de correspondances morphologiques conduit en effet à déceler différents stades de cette langue préhistorique, stades que nous allons tenter de présenter de façon cohérente dans ce paragraphe, sans toutefois perdre de vue qu'il ne s'agit que d'une interprétation des données reconstruites. Il faut en effet toujours se rappeler que les seules choses qui comptent en linguistique historique, ce sont les séries de correspondances phonétiques et morphologiques. Ce sont elles, et elles seules, qui établissent l'existence du négro-égyptien en tant que famille linguistique génétique.

Comme toutes les langues du monde, le négro-égyptien a évolué au cours du temps depuis cet état archaïque jusqu'à des formes plus complexes, dont chacune des langues historiques a gardé, on l'a vu, des traces plus ou moins nettes. Nous allons maintenant tenter de retracer cette évolution en anticipant quelques fois sur la reconstruction lexicologique. Cette présentation peut paraître hautement hypothétique, elle est néanmoins nécessaire et sera jugée sur son pouvoir explicatif, c'est-à-dire sa capacité à rendre compte de faits non encore rencontrés jusqu'ici.

---

quote:

---

The analyse of the morphological correspondences leads one to identify different stages of this prehistoric language, stages which we will try to present in a coherent way in this section, but keep in mind that this is on an interpretation of the reconstructed data. It must indeed always be remembered that the only things that count in historical linguistics, are the series of morphological and phonetic correspondences. It is they, and they alone, which establishes the existence of Negro-Egyptian as a genetic language family.

Like all of the world's languages, Negro-Egyptian has evolved over the course of time from an archaic state to more complex forms, each of which [the historical languages] has retained, as we have seen, traces more or less distinct. We will now try to trace this evolution in anticipation of a few times on the lexical reconstruction. This presentation may seem highly speculative, it is nevertheless necessary and will be judged on its explanatory power, that is to say its capacity to account for facts not yet encountered so far.

---

quote:

---

The Linguistic Methods of Chiekh Anta Diop

By
Clyde Winters


Chiekh Anta Diop has contributed much to the Afrocentric social sciences. Here we discuss many of Diop's views on using the linguistic sciences to rediscover the ancient history of Blacks.



Chiekh Anta Diop has made important contributions to linguistic theory in relation to African historiography. Diop's work illustrates that it is important for scholars to maintain a focus on the historical and linguistic factors which define the "personnalitè culturelle africaine" (Diop 1991, 227).


Language is the sanctum sanctorum of Diop's Afrocentric historical method. The Diopian view of historiography combines the research of linguistics, history and psychology to interpret the cultural unity of African people.


C. Anta Diop is the founder of modern Afrocentricism . Diop (1974,1991) laid the foundations for the Afrocentric idea in education. He laid these foundations using both the historical and anthropological/linguistic methods of research to explain the role of the Blacks in World History.



There are three components in the genetic model: 1) common Physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages. (Winters 1989a) Diop over the years has brought to bear all three of these components in his illumination of Kemetic civilization. (Diop 1974,1977,1978,1991)


The opposition of many Eurocentric scholars to Afrocentric -ism results from white hostility to Diop's idea of a Black Egypt, and the view that Egyptians spoke an African ,rather than Afro-Asiatic language.

Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered.(Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991)

For example Lefkowitz (1992) in The New Republic, summarizes

Diop (1974) but never presents any evidence to dispute the findings of Diop. The most popular "review" of Diop (1991) was done by Baines (1991) review in the New York Times Book Review. In this "review" Baines (1991) claims that "...the evidence and reasoning used to support the arguments are often unsound".

Instead of addressing the evidence Diop (1991) presents of the African role in the rise of civilization that he alleges is "unsound", he is asking the reader to reject Diop's thesis without refutation of specific evidence presented by Diop of the

African contributions to Science and Philosophy. Baines (l991)

claims that Diop's Civilization or Barbarism, is not a work of originality, he fails to dispute any factual evidence presented by Diop.

Baines (1991) wants the public to accept his general negative comments about Civilization or Barbarism ,based on the fact that he is an Egyptologist. This is not enough, in academia

to refute a thesis one must present counter evidence that proves the falseness of a thesis not unsubstantiated rhetoric. We can not accept the negative views of Baines on faith alone.

In the recovery of information concerning the African past, Diop promotes semantic anthropology, comparative linguistics and the study of Onomastics. The main thesis of Diop is that typonymy and ethnonymy of Africa point to a common cradle for Paleo-Africans in the Nile Valley (Diop 1978, 67).

Onomastics is the science of names. Diop has studied legends, placenames and religious cult terms to discover the unity of African civilization. Diop (1981, 86) observed that:

"An undisputed linguistic relationship between two geographically remote groups of languages can be relevant for the study of migrations. A grammatical (or genetic) relationship if clear enough is never an accident".

As a result, Diop has used toponyms (place-names), anthroponyms (personal names) and ehthnonyms (names of ethnic groups/tribes) to explain the evidence of analogous ethnic (clan) names in West Africa and the Upper Nile (Diop 1991).

In Precolonial Black Africa, Diop used ethnonyms to chart the migrations of African people in West Africa. And in The African Origin of Civilization, Diop used analyses acculturaliste or typological analysis to study the origin and spread of African cultural features from the Nile Valley to West Africa through his examination of toponyms (Diop 1974, 182-183). In the Cultural Unity of Black Africa, Diop discussed the common totems and religious terms many African ethnic groups share (Diop 1978, 124).

LINGUISTIC TAXONOMY

This linguistic research has been based on linguistic classification or taxonomy. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based (Ruhlen 1994). Linguistic taxonomy is necessary for the identification of language families. The determination of language families give us the material to reconstruct the proto-language of a people and discover regular sound correspondences.

There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, typological, and areal. A genealogical classifica-tion groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A typological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.

COMPARATIVE METHOD

Diop has used comparative and historical linguistics to illuminate the Unity of African civilization. Diop (1977, xxv) has noted that

"The process for the evolution of African languages is clearly apparent; from a far we (have) the idea that Wolof is descendant by direct filiation to ancient Egyptian, but the Wolof, Egyptian and other African languages (are) derived from a common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common mother language that one can call Paleo-African, the common African or the Negro- African of L. Homburger or of Th. Obenga."

The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.

Diop is a strong supporter of the comparative method in the rediscovery of Paleo-African. The reconstruction of Paleo-African involves both reconstruction and recognition of regular sound correspondence. The goal of reconstruction is the discovery of the proto-language of African people is the recovery of Paleo-African:

(1) vowels and consonants

(2) specific Paleo-African words

(3) common grammatical elements; and

(4) common syntactic elements.

The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages or Diop's Paleo-African. To reconstruct a proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since uniformity of terms leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.

HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS

A person's language provides us with evidence of the elements of a group's culture. Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about a group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologist make precise inferences about a groups culture elements.

Linguistic resemblances denote a historical relationship. This suggest that resemblances in fundamental vocabulary and culture terms can help one reconstruct the culture of the speakers of genetically related languages.

LINGUISTIC CONSTANCY

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 political stability of African political institutions has caused languages to change very slowly in Africa. Pawley and Ross (1993) argue that a sedentary life style may account for the conservative nature of a language.

African oral traditions and the eye witness accounts of travelers to Africa, make it clear that African empires although made up of diverse nationalities illustrated continuity. To accomodate the plural nature of African empires Africans developed a Federal system of government. (Niane , 1984) In fact we can not really describe ancient African state systems as empires, since this implies absolute rule or authority in a single individual. This political state of affairs rarely existed in ancient Africa, because in each African speech community local leadership was elected by the people within the community. (Diop, 1987) For example the Egyptians often appointed administrators over the conquered territories from among the conquered people. (Diop ,1991)

The continuity of many African languages may result from the steady state nature of African political systems, and long standing cultural stability since neolithic times. (Diop, 1991 ; Winters 1985) This cultural stability has affected the speed at which African languages change.

In Africa due to the relative stability of socio-political structures and settled life, there has not been enough pressure exerted on African societies as a whole and African speech communities in particular, to cause radical internal linguistic changes within most African languages. Permanent settlements led to a clearly defined system of inheritance and royal succession. These traits led to stability on both the social and political levels.

This leads to the hypothesis that linguistic continuity exist in Africa due to the stability of African socio-political structures and cultural systems. This relative cultural stability has led African languages to change more slowly then European and

Asian languages. Diop (1974) observed that:

First the evolution of languages, instead of moving everywhere at the same rate of speed seems linked to other factors; such as , the stability of social organizations or the opposite, social upheavals. Understandably in relatively stable societies man's language has changed less with the passage of time.(pp.153-154)

There is considerable evidence which supports the African continuity concept. Dr. Armstrong (1962) noted the linguistic continuity of African languages when he used glottochronology to test the rate of change in Yoruba. Comparing modern Yoruba words with a list of identical terms collected 130 years ago by Koelle , Dr. Armstrong found little if any internal or external changes in the terms. He concluded that:

I would have said that on this evidence African languages are changing with glacial slowness, but it seems to me that in a century a glacier would have changed a lot more than that. Perhaps it would be more in order to say that these languages are changing with geological slowness. (Armstrong, 1962, p.285).

Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:

Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.

THE BLACK AFRICAN ORIGIN OF EGYPT

Diop has contributed much to African linguistics. He was a major proponent of the Dravidian-African relationship (Diop 1974, 116), and the African substratum in Indo-European languages in relationship to cacuminal sounds and terms for social organiza-tion and culture (1974, 115). Diop (1978, 113) also recognized that in relation to Arabic words, after the suppression of the first consonant, there is often an African root.

Diop's major linguistic effort has been the classification of Black African and Egyptian languages . Up until 1977 Diop'smajor area of interest were morphological and phonological similarities between Egyptian and Black African languages. Diop (1977, 77-84) explains many of his sound laws for the Egyptian-Black African connection.

In Parènte Génétique de l'Egyptien pharraonique et des Langues Négro Africaines (PGEPLNA), Diop explains in some detail

his linguistic views in the introduction of this book. In PGEPLNA , Diop demonstrates the genetic relationship between ancient Egyptian and the languages of Black Africa. Diop provides thousands of cognate Wolof and Egyptian terms in support of his Black African-Egyptian linguistic relationship.

PALEO-AFRICAN

African languages are divided into Supersets (i.e., a family of genetically related languages, e.g., Niger-Congo) sets, and subsets. In the sets of African languages there are many parallels between phonological terms, eventhough there may be an arbitrary use of consonants which may have a similar sound. The reason for these changes is that when the speakers of Paleo-African languages separated, the various sets of languages underwent separate developments. As a result a /b/ sound in one language may be /p/ or /f/ in a sister language. For example, in African languages the word for father may be baba , pa or fa, while in the Dravidian languages we have appan to denote father.

Diop has noted that reconstruction of Paleo-African terms can help us make inferences about an ethnic group's culture going backwards in time to an impenetrable past undocumented by written records. This is semantic anthropology, a linguistic approach which seeks to discover aspects of man's culture from his language. Thusly, linguistic resemblances can help the anthropologists make precise inferences about a linguistic group's cultural elements.

BLACKS IN WEST ASIA

In PGEPLNA Diop makes clear his views on the role of African languages in the rise of other languages. Using archaeological evidence Diop makes it clear that the original West Asians: Elamites and Sumerians were of Black origin (1974, 1977, xxix-xxxvii).

Diop (1974, 1991) advocates the unity of Black Africans

and Blacks in West Asia. Winters (1985,1989,1994) has elaborated on the linguistic affinity of African and West Asian languages.

This view is supported by linguistic evidence. For example these languages share demonstrative bases:

Proximate Distant Finite

Dravidian i a u

Manding i a u

Sumerian bi a

Wolof i a u

The speakers of West Asian and Black African languages also share basic culture items:

Chief city,village black,burnt

Dravidian cira, ca uru kam

Elamite Salu

Sumerian Sar ur

Manding Sa furu kami,"charcoal'

Nubia sirgi mar

Egyptian Sr mer kemit

Paleo-African *sar *uru *kam

OBENGA

Obenga (1978) gives a phonetic analysis of Black African and Egyptian. He illustrates the genetic affinity of consonants within the Black African (BA) and Egyptian languages especially the occlusive bilateral sonorous, the occlusive nasal apico-dental /n/ and /m/ , the apico-alveolar /r/ and the radical

proto-form sa: 'man, female, posterity' in Black Africa.

Language

Agaw asau, aso 'masculine

Sidama asu 'man'

Oromo asa id.

Caffino aso id.

Yoruba so 'produce'

Meroitic s' man

Fonge sunu id.

Bini eso 'someone'

Kikongo sa,se,si 'father'

Swahili (m)zee 'old person'

Egyptian sa 'man'

Manding si,se 'descendant,posterity,family'

Azer se 'individual, person'

Obenga (1978) also illustrated the unity between the verbs 'to come, to be, to arrive':

Language

Egyptian ii, ey Samo, Loma dye

Mbosi yaa Bisa gye

Sidama/Omo wa Wolof nyeu

Caffino wa Peul yah, yade

Yoruba wa Fonge wa

Bini ya Mpongwe bya

Manding ya,dya Swahili (Ku)ya

between t =/= d, highlight the alternation patterns of many Paleo-African consonants including b =/= p, l =/= r ,and

g =/= k.

The Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This corresponds to many African terms for seed,grain:

Galla senyi

Malinke se , si

Sumerian se

Egyptian sen 'granary'

Kannanda cigur

Bozo sii

Bambara sii

Daba sisin

Somali sinni

Loma sii

Susu sansi

Oromo sanyi

Dime siimu

Egyptian ssr 'corn'

id. ssn 'lotus plant'

id. sm 'herb, plant'

id. isw 'weeds'


The Niger-Congo speakers formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. Originally hunter-gatherers the Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep).




.


The anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that East Indian people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.Dravidian languages belong to the Niger-Congo family.

In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. (http://olmec98.net/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10
(1976, pp.23-27:24. ).

Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26

can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote
_________________________________________________________________
Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9).
________________________________________________________________________


B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.


B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .


Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).

There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1
) .

There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .


There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).

Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.

Linguistic Evidence

1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.

1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.

1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians

1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.

1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.

1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.)
_________________________________________________________________

code:

---

COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS

ENGLISH    DRAVIDIAN      SENEGALESE        MANDING
MOTHER        AMMA          AMA,MEEN          MA
FATHER    APPAN,ABBA       AMPA,BAABA         BA
PREGNANCY   BASARU          BIIR              BARA
SKIN          URI          NGURU,GURI         GURU
BLOOD       NETTARU         DERET             DYERI
KING       MANNAN          MAANSA,OMAAD        MANSA
GRAND      BIIRA           BUUR                BA
SALIVA     TUPPAL          TUUDDE              TU
CULTIVATE  BEY            ,MBEY            BE
BOAT       KULAM           GAAL                KULU
FEATHER    SOOGE           SIIGE               SI, SIGI
MOUNTAIN    KUNRU          TUUD                KURU
ROCK       KALLU           XEER                KULU
STREAM     KOLLI           KAL                 KOLI

---

6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.

6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.

6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.

6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay
'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri
'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.

6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.

6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.


6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.

code:

---

English                Senegalese            Dravidian
body                   W. yaram                 uru
head                   D. fuko,xoox              kukk
hair                   W. kawar                 kavaram 'shoot'
eye                    D. kil                   kan, khan
mouth                  D. butum                 baayi, vaay
lip                    W. tun,F. tondu          tuti
heart                  W. xol,S. xoor           karalu
pup                    W. kuti                  kutti
sheep                  W. xar                   'ram'
cow                    W. nag                   naku
hoe                    W. konki                
bronze                 W. xanjar                xancara
blacksmith             W. kamara               
skin                      dol                   tool
mother                 W. yaay                   aayi
child                  D. kunil                  kunnu, kuuci
ghee                     o-new                   ney

---

Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.


In conclusion, Diop has done much to encourage the African recovery of their history. His theories on linguistics has inspired many African scholars to explain and elaborate the African role in the history of Africa and the world. This has made his work important to our understanding of the role of Black people in History.

---