...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
OT: Settling the issues on "Ethio-Sabean" connections, "Habashat", and the related
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yom: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yom: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yom: It is, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Proto-Semitic is native to the Northern Horn of Africa or even Africa, since a later derived form (but not yet Proto-Semitic) of Afro-Asiatic could have entered West Asia before evolving into Proto-Semitic. [/QUOTE]I don't follow this. If this "later derived" form moved into "southwest Asia", wouldn't this essentially be "proto-Semitic"? And you do realize that by raising the possibility that "proto-Semitic" is of extra-African origin, you are also saying that Ethio-Semitic origins lay outside of Africa? If so, what set of evidence are you going by? [/QUOTE]This derived form would be the ancestor of Proto-Semitic as well as another Proto version of another Branch of Afro-Asiatic, such as Berber. It's just a possibility, though. It's more likely that its homeland is in Africa, IMO. And yes, that would mean that its origins lie outside of Africa. I think it was Ehret who most recently stated that Proto-Semitic's homeland may be the areas straddling NE Africa and Sinai rather than wholly in NE Africa. In any case, if its homeland is in Egypt, that too would be outside of the Horn of Africa, no?[/QUOTE]I don't recall Ehret mentioning "straddling NE Africa and Sinai [which is part of northeast Africa in any case]". Can you please cite him on that. I do however, recall him talking about the "early Semites" being of African extraction. Note also that: [i]Two other lessons have particular applicability to Afroasiatic. For one, [b]the northerly Afroasiatic languages (Semitic, Berber, Egyptian) appear together to form just one sub-branch of the family[/b], and if relied upon to the exclusion of the other, [b]deeper, branchings[/b] of the family, give a misleading picture of overall Afroasiatic reconstruction. In addition, Afroasiatic is a family of much greater time depth than even most of its students realize; [b]its first divergences[/b] trace back probably [b]at least[/b] 15,000 years ago, not just 8,000 or 9,000 as many believe.[/i] - Ehret: [i]Reflections on Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic: Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary[/i][/QUOTE]Sorry, it was in an article that Ehret contributed to, but in describing [i]Diakonoff[/i]'s viewpoint. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/306/5702/1680c As to the quotation, the first diverging groups are Omotic and then Chadic, while the rest diverge later, and much later than 15 kya. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Suppose we call Yom's "later derived" form which moved into "southwest Asia", [i]pre-proto-Semitic[/i], and say that [i]proto-Semitic[/i] developed in situ in "southwest Asia", this would imply that "Semitic" sub-branches share a common ancestor. Knowing how it is proclaimed that proto-Afrasan speaking groups made it to "southwest Asia" some time in the late Upper Paleolithic, and knowing about the Neolithic economy and all, this would mean that proto-Semitic or what have you Neolithic cultural complex words would have made its way to each Semitic sub-branch to some degree or another. The question is, what is known about Ethio-Semitic root words which indicate inheritance from "southwest Asian" or "South Arabian" [i]Neolithic[/i], since the language would have been inherited [i]after or during[/i] those developments in the said region? It is a given that people usually come to a new place with their language intact. [/QUOTE]While an Afro-Asiatic language may have entered Southwest Asia in the Upper Paleolithici, it wouldn't have been Semitic. Semitic probably didn't branch off until ca. 7-8kya, IIRC. [/QUOTE]I know that it wouldn't have been Semitic proper, but could it not have been 'proto-Semitic'? [/QUOTE]Well, no, because Proto-Semitic wouldn't have diverged by then. It would have been a language that was the ancestor of more than just one Afro-Asiatic sub-group (i.e. Semitic and something else). Plus, Proto-Semitic is just the earliest form of Semitic. It's not an earlier language, but a hypothetical ancestor to all Semitic languages. Any form of Afro-Asiatic that had a form that evolved into the Semitic languages can be called a Proto-Semitic language, but the language implied by the term "proto-Semitic" is sort of their "least common multiple" and "lowest common denominator" (since old elements are lost in some languages, and new ones gained in others), i.e. the latest form of the language that was still ancestor to all of the so-called "Semitic languages" classified today. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3