...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
The Garamantes were not Berber speakers
» 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] This is pure conjecture. The Tuareg claim a western origin, not an origin in the Fezzan. Ehret maintains that the Tuareg do not expand into the central Sahara until the 1st Millennium AD (Heine and Nurse, African languages , p.292). This proposed migration would agree with Tuareg origin myth. The late expansion of the Tuareg into the Fezzan would not support a common origin for the Beja and Tuareg. Moreover this idea of a Proto Chado-Berber group which includes Tuareg is without merit. Ehret places Berber languages in his myhtical Erythraic group. Moreover I don't know where Tukuler developed the idea that the "Initial routing on the map can show movement of the Beja Cushitic ancestral component in Tuareg along the same corridor as Chado-Berber expansion." LOL. There are typological features shared by Beja and Tuareg, but there are no so-called "Beja Cushitic ancestral component in Tuareg " because the Tuareg came from the West, while the Beja lived in the east. [IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418BD7W11ML._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/3883742-L.jpg[/IMG] 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. This makes it clear that you can not reconstruct Afro-Asiatic. It is assumed that if languages are related you should be able to reconstruct the proto-language of the language family. There was no such thing as a Proto-Chado-Berber. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] Besides Tubu genetics, Haratin genetics is also vital in understanding the genetic history of the Sahara. Raise a cup to us staying alive until such reports appear. The field still accept Cavalli-Sforza's classical nuclear markers defining Beja (Cushitic) Tuareg (Berber) high affinity. (Begin reading Cavalli-Sforza1994 p172[URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&pg=PA172]here[/URL]) He posits a 5k split between the two. If this map is correct Chadic and Berber do originate near the same geography in line with Ehret's proto-Chado-Berber. [IMG]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/8919/lzy0.jpg[/IMG] Initial routing on the map can show movement of the Beja Cushitic ancestral component in Tuareg along the same corridor as Chado-Berber expansion. And WNW bound Nilo-Saharan utilized this same route. Tubu are Nilo-Saharans. No major migration was necessary and the further from the initial contact points the less of the E Africans. No E Africans at all needed to be at furthest points of the language shift of Cushitic Beja to Tuareg Tamasheq and further on to "Berber." E African mtDNA would thin out from Tschad to Fezzan being totally absent in the Maghreb and language shift still works. But note Tishkoff2009's STRUCTURE analysis Fig S13 show Beja and Mzabi essential not distinct with Beja more E African and Mzabi more Eurasian. East African mtDNA in Fezzani Tuareg likely represents the deme bearing the lect that North Africans adopted, a proto-language introduced from W Sudan. [/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