|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 4, 2003 5:43:04 GMT -5
I know that Berber is a group of languages, but I am asking which racial type spoke Berber first? Northern Berbers or Southern Berbers? Congo-Saharan is a group of languages Gregersen based on similarities between Congo-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan. Apart from a few Khoisan languages and those black Africans bordering Caucasians who speak Afro-Asiatic languages, all known languages spoken south of the Sahara are within C-S. Negroid or Congoid (Homo sapiens afer) is the term for the subspecies found from south of the Sahara to the the Zambesi. Within this group there are Paleocongid, Sudanid, Nilotid, Bantid and Ethiopid. They are all part of the same Negroid subspecies of man. The question is wether Ethiopids are a group defined by admixture with the neighbouring Caucasoid subspecies. As far as I know, the language breakdown that Joseph Greenberg prposed is accepted and not Gregersen, thus there is no Congo-Saharan language. Ethiopians are only lightly mixed with Asians, no where near enough to say they are differentiated from other black African. This is based on nuclear DNA studies conducted by Sara Tischkoff and Kenneth Kidd. What caucasians are you talking about that black Africans border? Are you implying that black Africans who speak Afro-Asiatic got it from "Caucasians"? If so you have to prove this. Cushitic, Chadic and Omotic and even Berber are languages that are native to Africa and were not imposed by outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 4, 2003 10:31:38 GMT -5
Gregersen's suggestion of a Congo-Saharan grouping was following Greenberg's revision, and his suggestion makes sense if you consider it to be linked to race.
The only Negroid speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages happen to be those who border those Caucasoid populations who also speak Afro-Asiatic languages, which are also spoken by Caucasoids far away from Africa. From the, present distribution of these languages, it appears that their origin is associated with Caucasoids.
I think that the linguistic evidence fits Coon's traditional interpretation of African prehistory very well, in that the Afro-Asiatic languages spoken south of the Sahara would be relics of the languages spoken in that part of the continent previous to a Negroid Congo-Saharan expansion, like Khoisan languages in Southern Africa and among the Sandawe and Hadza of Tanzania.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 4, 2003 12:37:30 GMT -5
Total nonsense. The only Afro-Asiatic language spoken outside of Africa is Semitic. Chadic speakers are not bordered by Caucasoids who speak Afro-Asiatic languages far from Africa. In fact, the majority of Afro-Asiatic speakers are black Africans(Amharas, Tigre=Semitic, Cushitic, Omotic and Chadic.) language analysis reveals that Cushitic is highly divergent from Semitic and Berber, but is closer to Omotic, the language believe to be where Cushitic branched off from. Chadic is highly divergent from ALL other Afro-Asiatic languages, thus if Caucasoid populations bordering near Negroid ones spread the language to Negroids, there would be a close relationship between them. There is none, except in the case of Amharic and Tigre, and the evidence is not conclusive that Sabeans spread their language to Ethiopians . The languageas do not correspond to race because the majority of the speakers are Negroid, with three(ancient Egyptian, Semitic, and Berber) spoken by both caucasoids and Negroid. None of the languages are spoken exclusively by Caucasoids. Afro-Asiatic originated either in the Sahara or the Red Sea coast and there were no Caucasoids there who originated them.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Dec 4, 2003 12:53:22 GMT -5
In fact, the majority of Afro-Asiatic speakers are black Africans(Amharas, Tigre=Semitic, Cushitic, Omotic and Chadic.) The original English speakers were American!
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 4, 2003 16:06:58 GMT -5
I don't understand how it matters, if "Chadic speakers are not bordered by Caucasoids who speak Afro-Asiatic languages far from Africa" or that "the majority of Afro-Asiatic speakers are black Africans."
If the "Negroid" Afro-Asiatic languages diverged first and more than once, then that suggests an African origin. But how can one be sure that Chadic and then Cushitic-Omotic were not pushed south where they later assimilated - if the languages were not spoken by resident Caucasians who were absorbed.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 4, 2003 19:52:02 GMT -5
I don't understand how it matters, if "Chadic speakers are not bordered by Caucasoids who speak Afro-Asiatic languages far from Africa" or that "the majority of Afro-Asiatic speakers are black Africans." If the "Negroid" Afro-Asiatic languages diverged first and more than once, then that suggests an African origin. But how can one be sure that Chadic and then Cushitic-Omotic were not pushed south where they later assimilated - if the languages were not spoken by resident Caucasians who were absorbed. Let me sum this up. there was no pushing of Caucasians deep into sub-saharan Africa spreading Afro-Asiatic languages and then being absorbed. What you are saying in effect is that a mythological bunch of Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speaking Caucasoids pushed deep into sub-Saharan Africa and mysteriously disappeared without a trace. In the case of the Chadic branch, they left 200-300 languages that are divergent from one another and then were absorbed? Nonsense. DNA evidence does not support any such hypothesis. Thus there were no Chadic, Omotic, and Cushtitic speaking Caucasoids who pushed deep anywhere into Africa. Omotic is spoken exclusively in southwest Ethiopia and Cushitic is spoken in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia. Where did these Caucasoids come from? There is no linguistic evidence of any of these languages being spoken outside of Africa first, but there is plenty of evidence indicating they(black Africans) did.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 4, 2003 20:00:39 GMT -5
Details on the origins of all the peoples that make up the population of highland Ethiopia were still matters for research and debate in the early 1990s. Anthropologists believe that East Africa's Great Rift Valley is the site of humankind's origins. (The valley traverses Ethiopia from southwest to northeast.) In 1974 archaeologists excavating sites in the Awash River valley discovered 3.5-million-year- old fossil skeletons, which they named Australopithecus afarensis. These earliest known hominids stood upright, lived in groups, and had adapted to living in open areas rather than in forests. Coming forward to the late Stone Age, recent research in historical linguistics--and increasingly in archaeology as well--has begun to clarify the broad outlines of the prehistoric populations of present-day Ethiopia. These populations spoke languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic super-language family, a group of related languages that includes Omotic, Cushitic, and Semitic, all of which are found in Ethiopia today. Linguists postulate that the original home of the Afro-Asiatic cluster of languages was somewhere in northeastern Africa, possibly in the area between the Nile River and the Red Sea in modern Sudan. From here the major languages of the family gradually dispersed at different times and in different directions--these languages being ancestral to those spoken today in northern and northeastern Africa and far southwestern Asia. The first language to separate seems to have been Omotic, at a date sometime after 13,000 B.C. Omotic speakers moved southward into the central and southwestern highlands of Ethiopia, followed at some subsequent time by Cushitic speakers, who settled in territories in the northern Horn of Africa, including the northern highlands of Ethiopia. The last language to separate was Semitic, which split from Berber and ancient Egyptian, two other Afro-Asiatic languages, and migrated eastward into far southwestern Asia. countrystudies.us/ethiopia/4.htm
|
|
|
Post by Limesucker on Dec 5, 2003 3:43:21 GMT -5
What you are saying in effect is that a mythological bunch of Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speaking Caucasoids pushed deep into sub-Saharan Africa and mysteriously disappeared without a trace. No. Southwest Asian farmers brought the language to Northeast Africa where it spread to neighboring African tribes who dispersed it throughout wider areas of Africa. There's no reason to assume Caucasoids directly transmitted the language to every single part of AA-speaking Africa. Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic were probably spread by way of secondary dispersals and not the original migration out of Southwest Asia.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 5, 2003 4:49:32 GMT -5
No. Southwest Asian farmers brought the language to Northeast Africa where it spread to neighboring African tribes who dispersed it throughout parts of sub-Saharan Africa. There's no reason to assume Caucasoids directly transmitted the language to every single part of AA-speaking Africa. Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic were probably spread by the secondary dispersals and not the original migration out of Southwest Asia. No southwest Asian farmers brought any Afro-asiatic languages into Northeast Africa. There is no evidence for this. The AA language family began in Africa. You're refuted on one point. New research in Ethiopia has shown that the words for plough in the Amharic language was influenced by Cushitic and existed well before any Sabaens migrated into Ethiopia, so southwest Asians did not spread farming into Ethiopia. As I've stated before, there is no evidence of any of the other languages in this family being spoken outside of Africa, save for Semitic. So unless you can show evidence that the LANGUAGE FAMILY itself was spoken first in southwest Asia, you cannot connect farming with the spread of AA from outside to inside Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Limesucker on Dec 5, 2003 5:04:21 GMT -5
AOW, there is evidence for a Southwest Asian origin of the protolanguage. Repeat of a previous post:
Science 2003; 300: 597-603
"There are two principal competing hypotheses for the origin of Afro-Asiatic. One, based on reconstruction of early vocabulary for cultural and environmental referents, places the homeland in the Levant during the earliest Neolithic (the late Natufian culture, 9500 B.C.) (32, 70, 71), with a subsequent two-pronged spread by 5000 B.C. that is well documented archaeologically: mixed farming across the Nile into Egypt and North Africa, giving rise to the Egyptian and Berber branches of Afro-Asiatic languages, and sheep- and goat-based pastoralism from western Arabia across the Red Sea into Ethiopia and Sudan, giving rise to the Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic branches (Semitic spread into Ethiopia much later). That Southwest Asian origin would now be masked by language replacement in the homeland, including the spread of the Semitic branch of Afro-Asiatic languages (including Akkadian or Babylonian, Aramaic, and Arabic) in historic times. The other hypothesis, reflecting Afro-Asiatic language subgrouping but with no clear archaeological support, favors a homeland in northeastern Africa (72, 73). That African origin would imply a preagricultural spread for Afro-Asiatic, perhaps with population movement into a wetter early Holocene Sahara. "
Only when heroes become hunters will lions cease being historians!
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 5, 2003 6:53:28 GMT -5
There don't have to be Chadic or Omotic or Cushitic speaking Caucasoids. Only the first Afro-Asiatic speaking people wh entered Africa need to be Caucasoid.
I would agree that Ethiopian agriculture is independantly African because of the indigenous crops. If the languages were not spread by farmes then they may already have been present.
Your argument from physical anthropology seems to be your confusion of Nilotid and Ethiopid Negroids, and the abstract does not seem to reclassify any East African Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Dec 5, 2003 11:12:12 GMT -5
There don't have to be Chadic or Omotic or Cushitic speaking Caucasoids. Only the first Afro-Asiatic speaking people wh entered Africa need to be Caucasoid. I would agree that Ethiopian agriculture is independantly African because of the indigenous crops. If the languages were not spread by farmes then they may already have been present. Your argument from physical anthropology seems to be your confusion of Nilotid and Ethiopid Negroids, and the abstract does not seem to reclassify any East African Caucasoid. Omotic was the first language to branch of from proto-Afro-Asiatic 13,000 years ago, so who are these first Caucasoids who migrated into Africa? Archaelogical evidence indicates no migration during this time into Afro but there were two African groups that migrated out, the Mushabians and Natufians.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Dec 5, 2003 17:02:29 GMT -5
Omotic was the first language to branch of from proto-Afro-Asiatic 13,000 years ago, so who are these first Caucasoids who migrated into Africa? Archaelogical evidence indicates no migration during this time into Afro but there were two African groups that migrated out, the Mushabians and Natufians. I think that Afro-Asiatic languages emerged somewhere in Africa among the Caucasoid immigrants who entered Africa during the late Pleistocene or the languages emerged among their Asian ancestors. When did the Natufian culture migrate into Palestine out of Africa? Egyptians used Fertile Crescent staple crops. And who are the Mushabians? I just did a search but couldn't fiind anything.
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Dec 5, 2003 19:57:49 GMT -5
I think that Afro-Asiatic languages emerged somewhere in Africa among the Caucasoid immigrants who entered Africa during the late Pleistocene or the languages emerged among their Asian ancestors. When did the Natufian culture migrate into Palestine out of Africa? Egyptians used Fertile Crescent staple crops. And who are the Mushabians? I just did a search but couldn't fiind anything. You keep saying Caucasoid Caucasoid but there is no evidence of any migrating in of Caucasoids who spread this language. I find it hard to believe that Caucasoids could come into Africa spread a language family to a group of non-Caucasoids . Its the old Hamitic Hypothesis being restated again, which Greenberg debunked.
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Dec 5, 2003 20:01:31 GMT -5
AOW, there is evidence for a Southwest Asian origin of the protolanguage. Repeat of a previous post: Science 2003; 300: 597-603 "There are two principal competing hypotheses for the origin of Afro-Asiatic. One, based on reconstruction of early vocabulary for cultural and environmental referents, places the homeland in the Levant during the earliest Neolithic (the late Natufian culture, 9500 B.C.) (32, 70, 71), with a subsequent two-pronged spread by 5000 B.C. that is well documented archaeologically: mixed farming across the Nile into Egypt and North Africa, giving rise to the Egyptian and Berber branches of Afro-Asiatic languages, and sheep- and goat-based pastoralism from western Arabia across the Red Sea into Ethiopia and Sudan, giving rise to the Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic branches (Semitic spread into Ethiopia much later). That Southwest Asian origin would now be masked by language replacement in the homeland, including the spread of the Semitic branch of Afro-Asiatic languages (including Akkadian or Babylonian, Aramaic, and Arabic) in historic times. The other hypothesis, reflecting Afro-Asiatic language subgrouping but with no clear archaeological support, favors a homeland in northeastern Africa (72, 73). That African origin would imply a preagricultural spread for Afro-Asiatic, perhaps with population movement into a wetter early Holocene Sahara. " Only when heroes become hunters will lions cease being historians! They have stated no clear evidence here Dienekes. They are trying to relate langauge with farming whch do not correlate. Pastoralism is Africa was started by Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples, not Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples.
|
|