...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Mdu Ntr and Bantu
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol I gave the same answer that Diop gave, 1)the speakers of Berber languages come from Arabia; and 2) they have been influenced by the Germanic languages, probably as a result of the Vandal invasion. [/QUOTE]^ Yes, and genetics and linguistics have proven that this answer false, as Berber primary lineages originate in Africa, not Arabia, or Germany. Linguistics backs this up, as their are no Berber languages in Germany or Arabia, nor is Germanic or Arabic regarded by any linguist as and ancestor of Berber. So your pseudo-citation is outdated and your answer is wrong. [/QUOTE][b] Genetics only deal with people living in the areas where samples are taken today, they have little insight on the past unless the samples come from ancient skeletal sources. The linguistic evidence is clear Berber languages may be related to the Semitic group because they originated in Arabia. The languages show little resemblence to Black African languages like Egyptian.[/b] . . [QUOTE]Originally posted by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT: [qb] 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"; issi "pl." Again Berber is totally different from Egyptian: s3t "daughter"; pl. s3wt ib "heart"; pl. ibw [/CODE]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)[/CODE]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 "lips" (Ahaggar)[/CODE]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.[/CODE]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. MTC. [/qb][/QUOTE]. [QUOTE]Originally posted by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT: [qb] 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. VII 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[/CODE]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)[/CODE]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]Akkadian Singular: shu, shi sha shat shati Plural: shuut shaat Dual: sha Berber: enni (invariant)[/CODE][/qb][/QUOTE]. . [QUOTE]Originally posted by COTONOU_BY_NIGHT: [qb] 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 [/CODE]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 »[or Afrasian] is an illusion, a myth. [/qb][/QUOTE]. [/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