posted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonis:
I remember reading somewhere here that cushitic languages were tonal, while semetic and berber were non-tonal. So what does this mean?
Is Somali tonal?

---

quote:

---

Tones
Somali is considered to be a tonal language. Its tonal system is different from languages such as Chinese, in which every word is associated with a particular tone. The Somali tone-accent system is mostly active at the grammar and discourse levels to indicate grammatical categories and information structure rather than to make a difference in word meaning. Some scholars suggest that Somali has two tiers of tones: one associated with word stress, and one associated with sentence intonation. The two tones interact to produce different tones. Tones are not usually marked in writing.

---

posted

---

quote:

---

Many Afro-Asiatic languages in the Chadic, Cushitic and Omotic families have register-tone systems, such as Chadic Hausa. Many of the Omotic tone systems are quite complex. However, many other languages, such as Cushitic Somali, have pitch-accent systems rather than tone.

---

posted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
Interesting...I knew Caddow was white, but now I wonder if it's at all connected to Tigrinya Tsa`ida (=white). The equivalent Somali spelling would be tsacida, I guess. Since Somali doesn't have a "ts" sound, maybe it dropped it? (I don't really know anything about Somali historical phonology, so this is just a guess...)

---

Caddow(Addow)= from Cad(ad) when used in a sentence ''Cadaan''(Adaan) (it was probably originally used to refer to the Yemenis from Aden(?)..) still the Tsa`ida connection is interesting!..There is a Somali word ''Tacsida'' from ''Tacsi'' but that means ''Mourning/(or giving condolences to the family)
 

posted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFRICA I:

Very interesting subject, I think Djehuti have some information on that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Two other lessons have particular applicability to Afroasiatic. For one, the northerly Afroasiatic languages (Semitic, Berber, Egyptian) appear together to form just one sub-branch of the family, and if relied upon to the exclusion of the other, deeper, branchings 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; its first divergences trace back probably at least 15,000 years ago, not just 8,000 or 9,000 as many believe. --- Ehret: Reflections on Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic: Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary

..and why not add, the following:

“The Semitic family can also trace their origins from this area in north-eastern Africa. Most modern experts hold the theory that the Semitic precursor-language must have at first existed in a cluster with ancient Egyptian and Berber, before exiting into its unique form. However the timing for these events is quite difficult to discern. The Semitic language-precursor being, for our purposes, the "last" language in formation, was somehow transported into Arabia and further east into central and northern Asia.”


Tonal languages appear in the Omotic, Chadic, and South and East Cushitic branches of Afro-Asiatic, according to Ehret (1996). The Semitic, Berber, and Egyptian branches do not use tones phonemically.


From what I can tell, they are indeed closely related; Beja seems to be grammatically more similar to the "Berber" languages than other Cushitic languages. This is understandable if "Berber" and "Beja" diverged from a branch of an already differentiated "Proto-Afrasan" language, with perhaps Beja being the older. Indeed, there might well be something to Sforza's observation that Tuaregs ["Berber" speakers] were least genetically distant to the Beja. The non-tonal languages of Egyptic, 'Berber' and 'Semitic' branches cluster relatively closely in comparison to other Afrasan languages, while they are more grammatically similar to Beja than other groups under the Cushitic sub-family. Omotic, Chadic and Cushitic sub-families largely consist of tonal languages, perhaps exemplifying [possibly older] branches relatively closer to the ancestral proto-Afrasan language. Chadic and Berber may have seen enough inter-influences via interactions of moving populations, to entice some scholars to closely associate them; however, again, Berber languages are considered non-tonal, while Chadic groups are largely considered otherwise. Ethio-Semitic languages too have heavily been influenced by Cushitic languages like say, the Agaw.

---