Talk:Afro-Asiatic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Afro-Asiatic languages article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

We have a terminology problem with the phrase language family. I would say Afro-Asiatic is at least as abstract as Indo-European.

I can't answer that question, I only know that the Semitic languages, judging from some household Arabic, some Biblical Hebrew and five words of Amharic are probably closer to each other than e. g. the Germanic languages.

The phrase "language family" is intentionally vague. Germanic is a language family, as is Indo-European. They're both "families" of languages. Some classifications try to distinguish families (about the time depth of Germanic or Semitic), stocks (about the time depth of Indo-European or Cushitic), and phyla (about the time depth of North Caucasian or Afrasiatic). However, there is no objective way to be rigorous in decided whether a particular grouping should be a family, stock, or phylum, especially when comparing larger or poorly supported languages groups, and few linguists bother. You might get an opinion that Afrasiatic, Altaic, or North Caucasian is older or more diverse than IndoEuropean, but might have a harder time ranking them against each other. --kwami

Isn't the most typical terminology "super-family" for a group like Afro-Asiatic (or Indo-European) and "family" for subgroups like Berber (or Italic)?

But another problem: The number of native speakers seams to be somewhat to small: If I am right, Arabic alone has more than 200 millions. Jakob Stevo 15:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

This article must be considered a stub: loads of interesting background (which of these languages has a written form etc.) could go into it --(talk)BozMo 15:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I got the epicene plural from Chadic Overview, which states that the gendered plural in Semitic and Berber is an innovation. Can you give examples in Egyptian and Beja? What does anyone else say about the plural? -phma 01:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Egyptian: m. pl. -w, f. pl. -wt [1]. In Beja, the article varies: something like e- m.pl., te- f. pl., but I'd need to check the book. I know Chadic, and I think Omotic, have epicene plurals, but they don't seem to be all that universal in what Bender calls "Macro-Cushitic". - Mustafaa 19:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm vaguely considering setting up an Afro-Asiatic WikiProject to try and encourage the development of a more complete set of articles on Afro-Asiatic languages: anybody interested? Recent work of mine that would tie in includes Berber languages, Northern Berber languages, Chenoua language, Soddo language, Bench language (in progress). It would be unrealistic to hope to get every language; but it would be nice to have at least a couple of representatives of every Afro-Asiatic subfamily, and to have some better sub-family articles for Chadic and Cushitic especially. - Mustafaa 08:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Map

Map showing the distribution of Afro-Asiatic languages
Map showing the distribution of Afro-Asiatic languages

Ouch. I've been busy creating maps for African language families since I thought this subject could use some color and visualization. The image to the right (Afro-Asiatic.png) is one of them. However, I see that I am a little Africa-minded: I forgot to include the Semitic languages outside the African continent... Forgive me! It will take some time to create a map including the distribution of the Semitic languages outside of Africa, since most of my sources are from an African linguistics perspective. Can someone give me some clues? - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 17:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The border is basically Syria and Iraq minus Kurdistan plus the Hatay, plus very small islands of Aramaic as far north as Azerbaijan, then plus Khuzistan and parts of Iran's Gulf coast.
For Africa, btw, have a look at Linguasphere, TITUS, and SIL-based maps... - Mustafaa 11:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I updated the map (lose your browser cache if you still don't see Afro-Asiatic in the Middle East). Sources: the previous map, online maps, and Stroomer 2002. Any comments? Mark Dingemanse (talk) 17:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! But surely it includes too much of Kurdistan? - Mustafaa 17:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Arabic is spoken in the Syriac (Syrish?) part of Kurdistan, and a band in the south of Turkey, with an offshoot into central Kurdistan, according to Stroomer's (2002) map. The TITUS and SIL maps confirm this Afro-Asiatic offshoot, as far as I can see. See this quick and dirty map of the precise area. However, I am not at home in that area, so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Mark Dingemanse (talk) 18:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess it makes sense that there would be an overlap between Arabic and Kurdish around there, and I'm certainly willing to take Harry Stroomer's word for it. That's a good solution he adopted, actually - coloring in mixed Arabic-Kurdish areas lighter as a transition zone... - Mustafaa 19:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good solution. I also like the way Linguasphere takes inhabitation into account. The layout I have chosen for this series of maps does not permit such subleties. For maps like this that's not really a problem though; they are only meant to present a quick overview of the distribution of the phylum. Mark Dingemanse (talk) 01:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Malta be included in the map? After all, Maltese is Semitic, therefore Afro-Asiatic. Homun 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest 4 possible wiki links and 7 possible backlinks for Afro-Asiatic languages.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Afro-Asiatic_languages article:

  • Can link The Egyptian: ...unts'', are sometimes argued to be Semitic [[loanword]]s.) The Egyptian ''smi'' "report, announce" may also be cognate.... (link to section)
  • Can link possessive pronoun: ...n other groups, such as the [[Niger-Congo languages]]. The possessive pronoun suffixes are supported by Semitic, Berber, Cushitic (includ... (link to section)
  • Can link Cambridge University Press: ...ces== * Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse, ''African Languages,'' Cambridge University Press, 2000 - Chapter 4... (link to section)
  • Can link Stanford University: ...r 4 * Merritt Ruhlen, ''A Guide to the World's Languages'', Stanford University Press, Stanford 1991.... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the Source of this Information

Hallo, I would like to ask the people responsible for the content of this page of anybody else who could know, about the source of the following information which appears in the article about the Afro-Asiatic languages.

In the section "Common Features and Cognates" there is the following table:

  Some cognates are:
  b-n- "build" (Ehret: *bĭn), attested in Chadic, Semitic (*bny), Cushitic (*mĭn/*măn "house") 
  m-t "die" (Ehret: *maaw), attested in Chadic (eg Hausa mutu), Egyptian (mwt, mt, Coptic mu), 
  s-n "know", attested in Chadic, Berber, and Egyptian;
  l-s "tongue" (Ehret: *lis' "to lick"), attested in Semitic (*lasaan/lisaan), Egyptian (ns, 
  s-m "name" (Ehret: *sŭm / *sĭm), attested in Semitic (*sm), Berber (isem), Chadic (eg Hausa 
  d-m "blood" (Ehret: *dîm / *dâm), attested in Berber (idammen), Semitic (*dam), Chadic, and

From which book is this information ?

Thank you for your help.


See the Etymological bibliography section; they're from:

  • Christopher Ehret. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone, Consonants, and Vocabulary (University of California Publications in Linguistics 126), California, Berkeley 1996.

It's an interesting book, by the way, though regrettably it mostly neglects Berber. - Mustafaa 17:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] difference in unverified classification

When I last spoke to Fleming a couple years ago, he said he grouped Egyptian, Beja, Chadic, Berber, and Semitic against a very diverse Cushitic, with Ongotá as a tentative third branch of this "Erythræan" family (that is, Erythræan + Omotic = Afrasiatic). The article states that he grouped Semitic with Cushitic, but gives no reference. Is anyone able to verify? --kwami 21:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking back at Ruhlen's Guide to the World's Languages, I realize I phrased that ambiguously; there was not meant to be any implication that Cushitic and Semitic grouped together. Apparently, Fleming 1981 divides non-Omotic AA into three branhces: Semitic, Cushitic, and everything else. If he's changed his opinion, that would certainly be worth changing. - Mustafaa 02:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My undated notes from a telephone call to Fleming were circa CE 2000, so I'll go ahead and make the change. --kwami 20:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emphatic consonants variously realized as?

I'm translating this article into Portuguese and I'd like some help. I'm not sure what this means: a set of emphatic consonants, variously realized as glottalized, pharyngealized, or implosive. Does it mean that all (or many of) those languages have a set of emphatic consonants, and that in some language they are the glottalized ones, in other the pharyngealized ones, and so on? Thanks in advance. Rcaetano 10:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it's supposed to mean. However, there may be some overlap. For instance, in Arabic q counts as an emphatic consonant, though I don't believe it's pharyngealized like the others. kwami 11:06, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I take that back. Arabic q affects vowels the way emphatic consonants do, but that doesn't mean that it would itself be called emphatic.
Yes, that is what it means. As a rule, they are pharyngealized in Berber, Arabic, and Aramaic, glottalized in Cushitic, Omotic, and South Semitic, and implosive in Chadic. - Mustafaa 16:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mustafaa, by "South Semitic", are you including the languages of Yemen and Oman, or just Ethiopic? kwami 20:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I see your point... but yes, Modern South Arabian too has the glottalized consonants. - Mustafaa 20:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This is enough for me to translate it correctly. However, I still don't quite understand it. I'm not a linguist, I don't speak any Afro-asiatic languages and I know it's difficult to describe sounds in written form, but could you tell me what does it mean for a consonant to be emphatic? The Emphatic_consonant article doesn't help much. Are there emphatic consonants in other languages? What about Hebrew?

In general, the "emphatic" consonants in Arabic are pharyngeal. Basically, this means that in addition to whatever else is going on in the mouth to pronounce the sound, the back of the throat is partly closed up at the same time. In addition to affecting the consonant sound, it also affects the sound of the following vowel. Most modern dialects of Hebrew have lost the emphatic sounds. Richwales 05:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely sure (I don't recall ever seeing this noted explicitly), all these "emphatic" sets are actually cognate and not just a shorthand for various "non-european" consonants, right? (Altho that would then prompt the question where eg. Hausa gets both implosivs & ejectivs, and which of them represent "the" emphatics?) --Tropylium (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Population estimate

The Figure given in the article of "285 million people" is obviously not correct, if you go to the link for "Semitic" it says on that page that the Semitic group is "spoken by more than 370 million people", so obviously one of these numbers has to be wrong. Somebody needs to eliminate all these inconsistencies, what kind of Encyclopaedia are we if our different articles contradict each other? Hibernian

[edit] Axumite Kingdom

What's with "Some scholars believe that, in historical or near-historical times, Semitic speakers crossed from South Arabia back into Ethiopia and Eritrea, while others, such as A. Murtonen , dispute this view, suggesting that the Semitic branch may have originated in Ethiopia."

Isn't the South Arabian origin of the Axumite Kindom well established (beyond some Afrocentrists)?

Should be stated more positively that main view is Semitic entered Ethiopia/Eritrea from S. Arabia in historical times.

True but S. Arabia was part of Ethiopia--Abyssinia --phenotypically similiar to modern day Ethiopians-

[edit] Ethiopia / origin of the family

I pulled out the following statement pending verification:

Ethiopia has almost all forms of the Afroasiatic language, making it more plausible that it is the source of the Afro-Asiatic language. There is nothing Asian about it.

I'm sure there is indeed a researcher (or more than one) arguing that the linguistic diversity of Afro-Asiatic in Ethiopia is a good reason to consider Ethiopia the homeland of Afro-Asiatic. It should be not too difficult to find a good cite then. Also "There is nothing Asian about it" carries with it a lot of (implausible) background assumptions. — mark ✎ 08:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Oh well, the article already has a statement to this effect: "Some scholars (such as Igor Diakonoff and Lionel Bender, for example) have proposed Ethiopia, because it includes the majority of the diversity of the Afro-Asiatic language family and has very diverse groups in close geographic proximity, often considered a tell-tale sign for a linguistic geographic origin." So this addition only duplicated what we already had. — mark ✎ 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ethiopian origin of Afro-Asiatic languages was now strongly supported by genetics. Their spread is very probably connected with the spread of Y haplogroup E3b1. 82.100.61.114 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with Ethiopia as a homeland of Afro-Asiatic. From what I have read, Khoisanid hunter-gathering persisted in the Ethiopian area until the beginning of the Neolithic (this is confirmed by the fact that Ethiopians are genetically the group most closely related to the South African Capoids. It appears that archaeologically there were a number of waves of cattle-herding neolithic settlers who moved into the Ethiopian Highlands up the Blue Nile and past Lake Tana, of which the Beja was the newest group to arrive. The centre for the dispersion of these Cushitic waves seem to have been the southern Sahara and the Sudan. If this is so, then it is very probable that when Meroetic is translated it will be found to be a form of Cushitic. It is rare to find Highland areas are ever the centre of a linguistic dispersal, instead they tend to be refugaria (as for example the Basque and Caucasian languages).
If Afro-Asiatic began spreading before 3-4,000 BCE, it is more probable that the Sudan was the homeland rather than Ethiopia. If this is the case, the modern distribution of Afro-Asiatic languages is a very good example of the Sahara pump theory. John D. Croft 10:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Whoever created the chart--You finally fixed the biased chart --You added north Central and north West Africa. This enterprise seems to have an Orientalist, North African caucasoid, neo Hamitic hypothesis bent to it. I was planning to address this issue but you have come close to removing one of the blatant biasses. A lot still needs to be reworded to achieve neutrality and parallel structure. Remember Ethiopia and Somalia are in the Sahel too.

Hmm, if this enterprise really had the biases you think it has, this article would probably be titled Hamito-Semitic languages. It isn't. Feel free to help fix whatever still needs fixing though! — mark ✎ 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is not what I think, it is what you did or did not do. You left out a whole family, especially the ones in West Africa and Central Africa, where the "classic negro" lives. Coincidence? I am making sure by content it lives up to the "Afroasiatic" title in terms of content. The sahel is not considered a geopolitical location as say North or East Africa. Not all of North Africa speaks Afro-Asiatic or East Africa speaks Afro-asiatic, the Nilotic language resides in those regions. If we are going to be prescise in terminology for one, do it for all. Bring on the semantic battle! I am rewording the first sentence.

I am also adding slight rewording to this sentence;

The Semitic languages form the only Afro-Asiatic subfamily extant outside of Africa. Some scholars believe that, in historical or near-historical times, Semitic speakers crossed from South Arabia back into Ethiopia and Eritrea, while others, such as A. Murtonen, dispute this view, suggesting that the Semitic branch may have originated in Ethiopia.

to:

The Semitic languages form the only Afro-Asiatic subfamily extant outside of Africa. Some scholars believe that, in historical or near-historical times, Semitic speakers **may have** crossed from South Arabia back into Ethiopia and Eritrea, while others, such as A. Murtonen,**and Ethiopian scholar Ayelle Berkerie** dispute this view, suggesting that the Semitic branch may have originated in Ethiopia.

If it is a "may have" for the out of Ethiopia, it should should be a "may have" for not out of Ethiopia. The not out of Ethiopia sounds more credible. I have also introduce Ethiopian scholar Phd Ayelle Bekerie.

[edit] Regular Sound Correspondences

Can anyone add some regular sound correspondences to this page? A few "cognates" are fine, but I think to better show the relationships between the various branches of Afro-Asiatic, some regular sound correspondences would be nice. Azalea pomp 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kabyle example

The verb is conjugated in the past, yemmut means "he died" and not "he dies". Also, the verb mmet is a loanword from arabic. Agurzil 02:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of speakers

Well, the entry on the Semitic languages, which are part of the Afro-Asiatic languages, states that they are spoken by more than 300 million people, while the entry here says the same about the Afro-Asiatic languages. While not strictly a logical contradiction, these statements do contradict if understood in normal usage: the more than 300 million in the Afro-Asiatic entry would have to be significantly more than the more in the Semitic languages entry, or else all other Afro-Asiatic languages would have to be extinct. Tkeu 11:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

The membership of the alleged Afro-Asiatic group is subject to considerable variations. This is especially true with the alleged "Chadic" and "Cushitic" branches. Sound laws and semantic laws are very vague. Childish imitations of the Indo-European group appeared after 1850. See "Observations concerning Ringe's "Calculating the Factor of Chance in Language Comparison" ", by Joseph H. Greenberg in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol.137, No.1(Mar.,1993) pp.79-90. Greenberg tries to defend himself when charged with using chance similarities. Greenberg's methods were the same in all parts of the world, where ever he was on the rampage. Many others have agreed with Ringe. Lyle Campbell has also attacked Greenberg. Campbell points out that Greenberg's methods include Finnish in "Amerind", contradicting Greenberg himself.

[edit] Not Really

There really isn't any "alleged" about Afro-Asiatic and Chadic. They are very well established. The structure of Cushitic is a problem, but the individual constituents of Cushitic (Beja, South Cushitic, Central Cushitic, East Cushitic, and, depending on who you are talking to, Omotic) are not problematic at all. Your comment about "childish imitations" and the fact that you don't have the courage of your convictions to even sign your post, shows your real level of linguistic training and understanding. (Taivo (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

I see now that you made precisely the same comment about Sino-Tibetan which leads me to believe that you are a simple Wikipedia vandal. (Taivo (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Your comments about Ringe and Campbell have ZERO to do with Afro-Asiatic. Greenberg was wrong about Amerind and Indo-Pacific and Eurasiatic. Afro-Asiatic has never been an issue. You need to do some real linguistics to see the difference. (Taivo (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

I happen to know Lyle Campbell and I think he would be oddly amused to find that anyone had interpreted anything he has said or written to be unsupportive of Afro-Asiatic as a valid genetic grouping. And Greenberg is not responsible for setting up Afro-Asiatic, contrary to your apparent belief--he just renamed it. (Taivo (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

My apparent belief is not my actual belief. Greenberg gave a new name to an existing phoney group in the case of Khoisan, as well. Greenberg's policy generally was to give the impression that he had made a new discovery, while avoiding an explicit false statement. The Wikipedia article on Khoisan expresses doubt about membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Khoisan is not a widely accepted genetic group anymore. This article is about AFRO-ASIATIC, NOT Khoisan or Amerind or Indo-Pacific or even Greenberg. Afro-Asiatic is NOT a "phony group" any more than Indo-European. Greenberg's comments on Khoisan are relevant for the Khoisan article, not here, in the Afro-Asiatic article. In the case of Afro-Asiatic, Greenberg simply gave a different name to a well-established genetic grouping that had already been accepted as a valid genetic group. No reputable linguist doubts the validity of Afro-Asiatic as a genetic group. The phonological and morphological evidence is just too strong to doubt. Afro-Asiatic is NOT one of Greenberg's pseudo-groups, established by multilateral comparisons. Greenberg had nothing to do with establishing Afro-Asiatic as a valid genetic grouping. You need to get your historical facts straight. I advise you to stop spitting into the wind--you're getting it all over your face. (Taivo (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Somali

The Somali word wudimta has prefixes that are nothing like those in the other examples,as far as sound is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Rather obviously, the "prefix conjugation" in Classical Arabic also has suffixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Editor Agurzil, who seems to be a native speaker of a Berber language, has already pointed out that the word mmet is a borrowing from Arabic. In the main article, it is used as "proof" that Berber is related to the Semitic languages. In the verbal table, no allegedly Chadic languages are quoted. Many allegedly Cushitic languages are not quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.59.189 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Oddly enough, 4 or 5 Somali verbs that do sound like the Semitic imperfect are not quoted, although they would be more to the writer's purpose. If the Chadic and other Cushitic verbs were quoted, they would drastically reduce the appearance of similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.59.189 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) In the verbal table, Egyptian is not mentioned. If it had been, it would have reduced the appearance of similarity. It has no verbal inflection for subject remotely like the Semitic imperfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC) There are no significant tones in Semitic and Berber. There were probably none in Coptic. Tones are important in Hausa and Somali. As intonation has been mentioned, the appearance of similarity is reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maths

A competent mathematician has produced a full discussion of the number of chance similarities expected at www.zompist.com/chance.htm This site is already quoted in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) See the article on "Mass Lexical Comparison". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) See the article on "Proto-World Language", where the same site is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I've read that article long ago and several times since and it is good. But like everything else you have referred to here, it has NOTHING to do with Afro-Asiatic. It throws ZERO doubt on the validity of Afro-Asiatic as a valid genetic unit. Afro-Asiatic has been quite well-demonstrated on multiple lexical, phonological, and morphological levels that no one seriously doubts its validity anymore. (Taivo (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC))