...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Diop's work "no better than pornography"
» 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posted by Frankly Kemet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence. [/qb][/QUOTE]Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources. [/qb][/QUOTE]They attack Diop's work but they are never specific. people accept this hogwash because they have not studied Diop's work and therefore fail to present counter evidence disputing his work. A good example is the work of Schuh The paper by R.G. Schuh [URL=http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/schuh/Papers/language_and_history.pdf]web page[/URL] has not disconfirmed the work of Diop. Diop presented almost 400 wolof-Egyptian cognates and Schuh only presents a handful of examples in which he claims Diop is wrong. No one except a novice who had not read Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire. Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes. The material in these books is explained in detail and Diop presents many examples in support of his proposition. If you read the Schuh article seriously you discover that he maintains that there may be "vague cultural or physical world connection[s]" (p.9), but Diop was wrong overall. Either there were connections or there were no connections. You can't ride the fence on this issue if you are calling a researcher's work false. Schuh's article was just a bias view on the part of the author regarding Diop's work. Dr. Schuh recommends that Diop would have been able to confirm his view of a African connection to Egyptian by first studying the sound resemblances in Niger-Kordofanian through reconstruction. This is ludicrious. The Indo-European language connection was not confirmed as a result of reconstructing proto-languages and then comparing them to proto- Greek and proto-Sanskrit. In fact when this language family was proposed the ideas of constructing proto-languages was unknown. Schuh ends this piece discussing the fact that the only relationship between an African language and Egyptian was Chadic. This was an interesting view, given the fact that the reference list indicates that his only published works are related to the Chadic people. This is also interesting because he did not present any Chadic reconstructions to support his theory, the requirement he demanded Diop present before Diop's views could find acceptance by Schuh and the linguistic community. I am sure that if Schuh would have wrote on any other topic his paper would not have been published. Publishers are quick to publish articles attacking Afrocentric studies because it is popular for liberals and conservatives alike to attack this group. I recommend you read the books below: Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire. Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes. Read the books yourself instead of taking the word of Schuh. Today the anti-Diop cabal believe that genetics has proven much of Diop's work to be false. This view is unfounded. Everyday it is becoming clear that the Egyptians shared many haplogroups with West Africans, especially Y-chromosomes E and R1, and mtDNA H, M and U. . [/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