...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptians DNA is Less Sub Saharan than modern Egyptian DNA.
» 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 Fourty2Tribes: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mboli's work is not supported by comparative linguistic methods. [/QUOTE]Why? Let him tell it, he used a newer improved model. [QUOTE] Diop's, Parente genetique de LEgyptien Pharaonique et des Langues Negro-Africaines, is the most exhuastive study of Negro-Egyptian, and no matter what you say it does prove Niger-Congo exist because it demonstrates connections between Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages.[/QUOTE]Can you give me an example of one connection that is true with Niger-Congo languages but not generally true with other languages? [QUOTE] I have not read Mboli’s entire book. But I have read summaries of his book http://www.youscribe.com/catalogue/livres/ressources-professionnelles/efficacite-professionnelle/origine-des-langues-africaines-174246 I have also checked out the book at Google books. Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book: [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false]http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCs Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false[/URL] If you can read French the pages at Google books gives a good understanding of what Mboli is doing in his work/book.[/QUOTE]I have some understanding. He did a six hour lecture on his methods. The best thing I could take from it was that he started from scratch and let the results shape his model. [QUOTE] 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.” [IMG]http://www.asarimhotep.com/images/stories/10008393_10201531091614427_357859812_n.jpg[/IMG] The theory of linguistic continuity for African languages nullifies Mboli’s argument for stages in Negro-Egyptian. In the article above I show the changes that took place within English over a period of 900 years. There was marked differences between Ebglish 900 years ago and present day English. I also illustrated that Mandekan terms collected by the Medieval Arabs over 500 years ago have full agreement with modern Mandekan terms. Indicating the continuity between old and modern Mandekan. If you noticed carefully, I can support my claim of African linguistic continuity based on modern lexica and Mandekan material 500 plus years old. Mboli makes bold claims about the existence of periods when Negro-Egyptian was spoken but he has no text to support his claims for these periods accept Middle Egyptian, since he does not accept Coptic as an Egyptian language. This makes his theory invalidate and unreliable. [/QUOTE]Sounds more like he sees Coptic as an Egyptian language, just not a continuation of the most common Egyptian language ie a Delta tongue. [QUOTE] Mboli is trying to make it appear that African proto-terms are identical to PIE. It is sad to me that Mboli represents proto-Negro-Egyptian as almost identical to PIE, eventhough proto-African terms due to linguistic continuity have not changed that much in 4-5,000 years and therefore the description provide by Mboli does not reflect African linguistic reality.[/QUOTE]Well Clyde you answered your own inquiry. That is how he gets his dates. This is consistent with the linguist that were saying IE came out of Niger-Congo. [QUOTE] Much of the work in recent years that have Europeans practicing a agro-patoral civilization that included mining in addition to farming is hogwash. Proto-Europeans were nomads, nothing more. The new PIE terms relating to anything but a nomadic existence are going to be African in origin because Africans introduced and maintained civilization in Europe until after 1000BC when I-E people invaded Europe. Asar, like most African and Afro-American researchers you have been so brainwashed that you can't believe that Europe was only recently occupied by Europeans. But Europeans have always known tha civilization in Europe originated with Africans. Dr N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and the West (only recently translated from French into English) provides numerous research on the Africans in Europe.[/QUOTE]Thats a reach. IE being a branch of Negro Egyptian has nothing to do with where that branch went. [QUOTE] Because Mboli's work makes Proto-Negro-Egyptian and African proto-terms generally identical to PIE makes his work appear satisfactory since it recognizes the superiority of Eurocentric views of African languages and linguistics. Eurocentrics already believe that Egypt was founded by "whites" so Mboli's findings only confirms their theories, that a group of "whites" spread civilization across Africa. That's why they ignore his claims about Negro-Egyptian being the parent of PIE. Secondly, you can not determine stages in a language simply by looking at morphemes. The periods Mboli claims for Negro-Egyptian grammars are myth and never existed. [QUOTE][list] [*]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 Chapitre VII. Correspondances lexicologiques…………………… 373 [*][/QUOTE] [/list] After reading the book Mboli claims he arrived at the divisions of Negro-Egyptian grammar by looking at the morphologies of NE "base" words(See pp.361-362). Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book: [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false]http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCs Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false[/URL] This is impossible you can only determine periods in a language by looking at written text. Just looking at the base vocabulary can only allow you to find cognate terms. The only consecutive written text relate to the various stages in Egyptian. You can accept what ever you wish.But you will remain ignorant of comparative linguistics until you acquire the knowledge base to determine what is junk and what is comparative linguistics. Why do you say that Mboli only discusses PIE in the last chapter. Throughout his discussion of PNE terms under the title of Correspondances lexicologiques he compares the PNE words to PIE. You hope to hide this reality, because most people on the forum don't read French. This can be remedied if the reader can copy the text and place it in Google translation program. [b] Mboli wants to make it appear that PNE was the originator of PIE, that is why he has attempted to make his PNE terms conform to PIE forms. Eurocentrists know this. They are just waiting until African and Afro-American africologist use Mboli's text to support their work and then show how what Mboli has written, for the most part, is nonsense. [/b] The good thing is that most Africologists never present their work to expertsat National and International Conferences where Graduate students and professors will hear their presentations, so they can pretend what ever is written by a popular Africologist is the "truth". I publish my work in journals with editors who have experts to peer review my work, and if it does not meet the standards of comparative and historical linguistics it will not be published. The major problem is that linguists who are Afro-American Africalogist and French speaking African researchers have done considerable work detailing the morphology and lexical analogy of Egyptian to Wolof, Egyptian to Bantu and etc., but they have not reconstructed proto-terms for Bantu, Wolof and Negro-Egyptian so they don't know how to evaluate Mboli's work. [/qb][/QUOTE]I think you are assume-reaching but at least you are making sound challenges. Are you up for a debate? At least come on my channel and chop it up. [/QB][/QUOTE]There is no such thing as an improved model of comparative linguistics. There is only one method in comparative and historical linguistics and that method is not present in Mboli's work. Comparative and historical linguistics is not based on the comparison of isolated words. This method of research determines relationships based on the number of lexical items and linguistic features shared by two or more languages. Linguistic research is based on the classification or taxonomy of languages. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of purposes . First, it is necessary for the identification of language families. Secondly, linguistic taxonomy gives us the material to reconstruct the Proto-language of a people and discover its regular sound correspondences. There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, topological, and areal. A[b] genealogical classification[/b] groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or Proto-language. An[b] areal classification[/b] groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A[b] topological classification[/b] 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 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. The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages. 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 conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor. [b]__________________________________________________________ [list] [*]COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS FROM BASIC VOCABULARY 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 __________________________________________________________________[/b] [/list] A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or type of vowels. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain places in words having similar meanings and representing similar speech sounds. I.Consonantal Correspondence[list] [*]English Tamil Manding s=/=s woman asa musa t=/=t fire ti ta l=/=l house lon lu 'family habitation d=/=t law di tili camp dagha otagh forest kaadu tuu m=/=m mother amma ma land man ma 'surface,area' k=/=k kill kal ki man uku moko b=/=p great pal ba x=/=s sheep xar 'ram' sara c=/=s penis col sol-ma abundant cal,sal s'ya [/list] II. Full Correspondence of terms from Basic Vocabulary[list] [*][b] English Dravidian Manding life zi 'abundance clay banko-mannu banko blacksmith inumu numu lie kalla kalon cultivation bey be lord,chief gasa kana,gana to recite sid, sed siti great bal ba to do cey ke rock kal kulu road sila if,what eni ni to cut teg tege exalted ma [/b] [/list] Linguist determine relationships by comparing terms from the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary of a language include lexical items of ‘universal human experience’, that exist among all humans that relate to a speakers culture, e.g., body parts, numerals, personal pronouns, the demonstratives and etc. MBoli does not use regular correspondence to determine the relationship between languages. Look at the paradigm below [QUOTE] M-E : [b]n[/b]Tr [b]n[/b]w « c'est (un) dieu » (littéralement « dieu c'est ») [is (a) god > "god is"] Sango : [b]n[/b]zo [b]n[/b]í « c'est bon » (littéralement « bon c'est ») > « le bon » [what is good > "it is good"] Zandé : [b]n[/b]dike [b]n[/b]yeki « la loi est dure » (littéralement « loi dure ») [the law is hard > "harsh law"] Hausa : [b]n[/b]agàri [b]n[/b]ē « c'est bon » (littéralement « bon c'est ») > nagarin « le bon ». [what is good > "it is good"; Nagarin > "the good"] [/QUOTE]1.M-E : nTr nw ‘this god’ 2.Sango : nzo ní ‘this is good’ 3.Zandé : ndike nyeki ‘the law is hard’ 4. Hausa : nagàri nē ‘this good’ The first thing that strikes you looking at these terms is that they lack agreement in meaning. The term ‘god’, does not agree with the idea of ‘this is good’ or ‘hard law’. Secondly the consonantal patterns are different[b]:1. N-t-r n-; 2. N-z n-; 3. N-d-k- ny-k; and 4. N-g-r n-.[/b] As you can see based on comparative linguistic methods this paradigm does not show a genetic relationship. It is further proof of the lack of reliability or validity of Mboli’s reconstructions of N-E. I would not mind a debate if it was based on linguistic grounds. I have already pointed out the defects in Mboli's method so debating the issue is a waste of my valuable time. I debated this issue years ago with Asar. See Author Topic: Origine des langues africaines: essai d'application de la méthode, by Jean-Claud, http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=008973 Up to now Mboli has presented no linguistic evidence that his results have any validity. I do not see a relationship between the so called Proto-Indo-European and Niger-Congo languages. I don't believe that Indo-European languages ever existed as a family of languages.The Indo-European family of languages never existed. See: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm Because I-E languages never existed Mboli's reconstruction of Proto-Negro African terms that correspond to I-E Proto-terms is ludicrous. It is invalid because MBoli does not use regular correspondence to determine the relationship between I-E and African languages as demonstrated above. There is a Niger-Congo substratum in European languages because Europe was already occupied by the Kushites ( who spoke Niger-Congo languages) when the Europeans entered Europe. Most researchers base the antiquity of the I-E languages based on the relationship between the Greek and Sanskrit language.There was no Indo-European ancient Empire. The relationship between European languages and Sanskrit, is the result of Greeks living in Pakistan when Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit; and both the Romans and Greeks used the Greek language as the Administratve language and lingua franca in their empires. See: https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit [b] The first Caucasian Europeans were a nomadic people lacking any culture so they adopted the terms used by the African people they conquered. As a result, Proto-Negro African languages would not look like Proto-Indo-European lexical items because Proto-European was never spoken by any human population.[/b] [/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