|
Post by Melnorme on May 15, 2004 13:12:20 GMT -5
Awar, how about this Said character. He is very aggressive about the Hamito-Semitic languages and his love of Greenberg and Ehret. He accuses others of being trolls. What is he? I don't care how many eminent personages you want to quote. Opinion, even expert opinion is just that. Why don't you provide an alternative source, instead of just sticking your head in the sand when somebody tells you something you don't like and saying "It can't be!"
|
|
|
Post by zain on May 15, 2004 18:34:44 GMT -5
Here is a description of the Mahra: The language is derived from the language of the Sabaeans, Minaeans and Himyarites. The Mahra with other Southern Arabian peoples seem aligned to the Hamitic race of north-east Africa. The Mahra are believed to be descended from the Habasha, who colonised Ethiopia in the first millennium BC (WT p. 198). Many Bait Kathir understand the Mahri language. The Qarra and Mahra have almost beardless faces, fuzzy hair and dark pigmentation (WP171). This contrasts to the northern Arabs who are Semitic Caucasian.www.globalconnections.co.uk/pdfs/MAHRAArabs.pdfso that make arabs non cocasiuod .black right ? nonsense the sematic Habasha,are sematic arabian who colonised the cushitic Ethiopia ,and they are not negroid . members.lycos.co.uk/almahrah2003/ArabiskBB/templates/subSilver/images/logo.gif[/img] members.lycos.co.uk/almahrah2003/ArabiskBB/index.phpmahara ,this is thier descusstion forum in the internet ,and i had an intersting descusstion with some of them ,most of them are arabs ,the black mahar their name is jabali /shahre they live in the coastal highland of zafare (dafar) and they are linked to the islands ,wither it is out of africa theory or out of india those people are not negroid and they are not arabs they might be an offshoot of the island peopl who end up in the coastal mountian of south arabia .just as there are many drvidian in the coastal south .
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 16, 2004 10:23:48 GMT -5
With the Afro-Asiatic language group, but mainly the Semitic group I did mention Renfrew, only to have Said say he is not a linguist. Well it sounded like this "who is white" argument that goes on in internet forums, using sources that agree with your point of view and excluding others that do not agree. Greenberg, Ehret et all may be linguists with accreditations to their names saying so, but that does not mean they are right or cannot be questioned or don't have base reasons for writing what they write, for example to make a name for themselves in an niche topic. Everyone is fallible even Graeme and no one is above criticism. Linguists are not scientists but similar to idiote savants when it comes to language, however they are on very shaky ground once they start making judgements and comparisons backwards thousands of years in time. I have my view that the Semitic languages originated in West Asia in the Northern Hemisphere and have nothing to do with Africa, I also accept that it is the parent language group for Berber, Egyptian and Cushitic. As far as Omotic and Chadic, I consider these to be African negro languages influenced by the other groups so that they have similar features. If you take Cymric and Breton which were the same language, the present differences would reflect contact with English and French respectively.
Melnorme, I never stick my head in the sand. I alway can be depended on to come out fighting and I do not have Anglo-Saxon scruples.
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on May 16, 2004 11:15:03 GMT -5
Blowing up another smokecreen alex? That shitty little website is the opinion of one black person, you know so very little about black people, which is why I'm still banned from your forum. Another glorious statement. You were banned because I know very little about Black people, lol! No, moron: you were banned because you used 5 or 6 different logins AND proxies.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on May 16, 2004 23:24:12 GMT -5
[/img] members.lycos.co.uk/almahrah2003/ArabiskBB/index.phpmahara ,this is thier descusstion forum in the internet ,and i had an intersting descusstion with some of them ,most of them are arabs ,the black mahar their name is jabali /shahre they live in the coastal highland of zafare (dafar) and they are linked to the islands ,wither it is out of africa theory or out of india those people are not negroid and they are not arabs they might be an offshoot of the island peopl who end up in the coastal mountian of south arabia .just as there are many drvidian in the coastal south . [/quote] No idiot, I'm not implying that the Mahra were/are blacks, I'm proving my point that southern Arabians show a noticeable slope to the Abysssinian type in east Africa and that they differ SIGNIFICANTLY from other Arabs who dwell up north. Don't put words in my mouth. "Semitic Arabian" has nothing to do with race and the theory that Southern Arabians colonized Ethiopia has now been revised, because that theory is not longer accepted in light of new evidence. It is now advanced that there was gradual IMMIGRATION of some Arabs, not a colonization. I have tons of papers and have posted frequently on this subject, just ask Melnorme.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on May 16, 2004 23:33:48 GMT -5
With the Afro-Asiatic language group, but mainly the Semitic group I did mention Renfrew, only to have Said say he is not a linguist. Well it sounded like this "who is white" argument that goes on in internet forums, using sources that agree with your point of view and excluding others that do not agree. Greenberg, Ehret et all may be linguists with accreditations to their names saying so, but that does not mean they are right or cannot be questioned or don't have base reasons for writing what they write, for example to make a name for themselves in an niche topic. Everyone is fallible even Graeme and no one is above criticism. Linguists are not scientists but similar to idiote savants when it comes to language, however they are on very shaky ground once they start making judgements and comparisons backwards thousands of years in time. I have my view that the Semitic languages originated in West Asia in the Northern Hemisphere and have nothing to do with Africa, I also accept that it is the parent language group for Berber, Egyptian and Cushitic. As far as Omotic and Chadic, I consider these to be African negro languages influenced by the other groups so that they have similar features. If you take Cymric and Breton which were the same language, the present differences would reflect contact with English and French respectively. Melnorme, I never stick my head in the sand. I alway can be depended on to come out fighting and I do not have Anglo-Saxon scruples. If you think Ehret and Greenberg are so wrong POST SOME STUDIES or evidence to prove this instead of running your trap trying to cast doubt with ad-hominem strawman statements. Semitic isn't the parent language for none of the others. It wasn't even the first language to branch off from proto Afro-Asiatic. Cushitic even preceded Semitic. Need I post links and studies to confirm this? Most linguists do not specifically know where Semitic originated at, it could still be Africa or Asia, but the question of where Afro-Asiatic originated at and the relationship that Semitic shares with other Afro-Asiatic languages is not in question by linguists. You can have your own views, but you haven't posted anything convincing to corroborate them. Taking Semitic only because it is the only Afro-Asiatic spoken outside of Africa to prove an West Asian origin for Afro-Asiatic and excluding the other languages in this language group is beyond comprehensive.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 17, 2004 7:58:47 GMT -5
Look I group linguists with witchdoctors, soothsayers and artists. Linguistics is not a science, but a field of intuition, extrapolation, art and guesswork. Once anyone goes away from what is written to what is not, everything said by Messrs Greenberg and Ehret is just guesswork. Humans spoke languages long before Egyptians or Sumerians were a mote of dust. Long before clay tablets or any script or civilisation, yet Messrs Greenberg and Ehret presume to know that the Semitic group and those other but minor languages originated in Africa and by inference, first spoken by negroes. Africa may be the homeland of humanity, but the negro races are not necessarily the oldest races. They may have developed from primitive sapient stock after the others who became Australoids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids. It is the same with languages the Semitic languages maybe much older than Chadic or Omotic. And Egypt was more a part of the Middle East than Africa and has more in common with the Middle East than its location in Africa. Egypt's location in Africa is not significant. I am not talking about real estate where location is the key, but languages.
If this makes you happy, I cannot disprove your witchdoctors, but all you can do is spout hypotheses of educated guessers. They may be totally wrong. The Maltese word for earth/soil is art which comes from Arabic and is oddly similar to the English word for earth which is earth. Does that mean English and Maltese have the same origins because art = earth? Structure, phonology, semantics and morphology of languages change and have changed over time even in the times of literacy. Old English is very foreign and not understandable to English speakers today.
As for me, linguistics is for girls, children or artistic types I am interested in more substantial subjects with less airy fairy ideas. I am not good at languages as I only speak English, Italian, Maltese and Indonesian. My linguistic talents are limited.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 17, 2004 8:07:27 GMT -5
'Earth' in Arabic is 'Ard', I believe. In Hebrew 'Aretz'. 'Art' is something completely different.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 17, 2004 8:27:48 GMT -5
Yes you are right about the transliteration of the Arabic ard, but I said in Maltese, which you should know is a corrupt form of Arabic via Aghlabid Tunisian Arabic koine. So in Maltese earth is art, the t is a corruption of the letter d. In any case even if it was spelt as ard it would still be pronounce as art in Maltese as d at the end of words is pronounced as t. Maltese is like that, it does not follow Arabic phonology and lacks most of the sounds in Arabic like the th sounds, the gh sound and the q sound. In Maltese th sounds are pronounce as t or d, and q is a glottal stop and gh has no sound, but is used in front of vowels in order to not change the indefinite article. Maltese has sun letters and moon letters and follows Arabic in verbal forms though much simplified.
Melnorme you misunderstood. Art = ard = aretz. Alla halaq is-sema u l-art = God created heaven and earth.
|
|