Every now and then, when having discussions about various aspects of history, we come across people who want to enter into its discourses, but have little to know knowledge about a given field within its vast scope (i.e., its history, evolution, literature and methodologies). Often we find that there are individuals who have read or glanced over some basic literature in the field, and as a result of their flirtation with the subject, deem themselves experts of the field qualified enough to make intelligent arguments about certain subject matter. Our Bro. Netjer Neb KD Hartley-el has recently fallen into this camp. He is of the belief that it is logically possible to disagree with arguments he himself has not studied. It is perfectly clear that on issues concerning the history, evolution, literature and methodologies of African historical comparative linguistics, Bro. Netjer is not conversant. This was made apparent when he was challenged to falsify the data presented that demonstrated that M-E (Middle Egyptian) and Coptic were two separate languages, as given one example as it regards the stress (or non-stress) on the suffixes and its causative behavior on vowels. Instead of addressing the linguistic evidence provided at the beginning of the discussion, because he doesn’t know what he’s looking at, he instead tries to do diversionary tactics to distract from the main point. The first few sentences laid out the context for the information that followed: ASAR IMHOTEP (August 28 at 6:52pm): “As noted earlier, Coptic is a different language than Middle-Egyptian (M-E). One way that we can demonstrate this is by the way the respective languages handle its syllables. As Mboli (2010) has demonstrated, the Negro-Egyptian (N-E) language phylum (Obenga 1993, Bilolo 2011) consist of two primary branches: what Mboli calls BERE and BEER branches.” As we can see here, four major points were introduced. They are: 1. Coptic and Middle-Egyptian are different languages. 2. Both of these languages belong to a language phylum called NEGRO-EGYPTIAN 3. The differences can, in part, be determined by the way the languages handle their syllables 4. The linguistic evidence helps, along with other data, to establish two main dialects of Negro-Egyptian Post Classic: i.e. the BERE and BEER branches. From there some data was discussed to demonstrate the issue of the syllables and the behavior of vowels. Somehow, in the mind of Bro. Netjer he interpreted, what was clearly stated in plain English to the contrary, that Coptic was not related to, or not an Egyptian language. This was never stated as can be seen above. When it was pointed out to him by others that he misread it, he still continued to argue as if it was stated repeatedly after many attempts to correct his error. This was all in an attempt to distract from the fact that he has no background in linguistic analysis in order to challenge the small amount of data provided. Instead of humbling himself, he instead tries to argue on points as if he has an understanding of the subject matter. A case in point, he tries to challenge the notion that Tshiluba is closer to M-E than Coptic by copying and pasting data which shows similarities in sentence structure and/or terminology. Because he hasn’t studied linguistic material regarding African languages, he thought he was saying something serious and schooling the rest of us on these matters. Little does he know that this work has already been done. We can write sentences and phrases in Tshiluba and M-E as well. Observe: M-E: Imn-imn.f-sw r msw.f The cover that hides his children ciLuba: Imana musokomenene nsemo/misa yende ciLuba: Iman mudisokomenesh kudi nsemo/nshiya yende ciLuba: MuShimine mubutamine/shalamine luSemu lwandi M-E: imn-nA-imn The hidden of hiddens ciLuba: MuSokomene-na-baShimine ciLuba: MuShimini-na-baShimine ciLuba: MuJimini-ne-baJimine M-E: pA-nty-m-Hrt He is the one who is in heaven ciLuba: pa-ndy mu Dyulu ciLuba: Pandi mu dya-Kulu ciLuba: Pandi mmu KyUlu (Bilolo, 2010: 94-95) But M-E Hr.t can also be rendered in ciLuba: Pandi mu diKolo Pandi mu ciKulu Pandi mu cyEla We also have: M-E: Imn irw.f He who hides his form ciLuba: Mumamine lwidi lwende ciLuba: MuTentamane mumamine lwidi lwende M-E: mn jHt nbt (He) who stabilizes, maintains, strengthens all things ciLuba: imanisha cintu cyonso The Bantu languages are the latest stage of Negro-Egyptian. This is why we see the added morphemes. When we begin any research project, we always have to state our assumptions so that we better understand the reasoning for the particular methods or approach we take when we write our final analyses. Mboli, in the true spirit of scholarship, did just that. Here is the basis for which he begins his work on the reconstruction of Negro-Egyptian: a) There is currently no general (genetic) classification of African languages. b) A careful examination of the documents currently available shows that the exclusion of Semitic, Berber and Khoisan, all African languages - we now call black African in the course of this work - provide globally the same overall phonological and morphological structure and the same evolutionary dynamics (gradual disappearance of grammatical gender, the duel, suffixal conjugation, etc.). c) There is a prehistoric language - which we call the négro-égyptien, following Th. Obenga - which has historically led to the Egyptian (old and Coptic), Wolof (CA Diop: 1989) and Bantu languages. (Th Obenga: 1993, O. Ndigi: 2003). d) There are a number of corroborating evidences indicating that if not all, at least most, other current black African languages are also derived from this dialectical ancestor. e) The proof of kinship and reconstruction of Negro-Egyptian are difficult to make because of the high number of languages involved, their mutual influences and length of the period of unity. (Mboli, 2010: 94) (translated from French by Asar Imhotep) Other assumptions made in this text involves the nature of how languages share features. This is important when understanding why Coptic, in earlier Egyptological texts, is confused as being a “stage” in a linear evolution of Middle-Egyptian instead of being a separate language. The linguistic phenomenon discussed in this text is what linguists call “convergence.” R.M.W. Dixon, in his text _The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997)_, discusses, at length, the nature and impact of convergence during a time of linguistic equilibrium and how certain features are diffused among the languages in contact. We can get some insights into the nature of the argument as discussed in the following paragraph by Dixon: “There is need to conceive of a language family having its beginnings not in the end-point of an earlier family tree but in the linguistic situation that would hold at the end of a period of equilibrium. Rather than a proto-language there may have been a proto-linguistic similarities of structures and forms (but still distinct languages, on criterion of intelligibility).” (Dixon, 1997: 141) With this in mind, we note that Coptic shares a lot of features with middle Egyptian because 1) it is genetically related to M-E, and 2) it has borrowed much from M-E as a result of existing for a very long time in the same vicinity as M-E. Prof. Lutz Marten (University College Cork), in the video below, discusses how this phenomenon of convergence has had an impact on Southern Bantu languages and how these languages, although ultimately related, began to share common features NOT inherited from their predialectical ancestor, but because these speech communities were in contact with each other across a very wide track of space for a very long time. Although he gives a pre-text before 23:28, around this time is where he begins to discuss convergence and divergence and how features are shared between related (and unrelated) languages as a result of convergence: youtu.be/QDrZRZTCcyU?t=23m28s. A further explanation can be seen starting at around 28:00. This is central to the understanding of the new approach to understanding African history and linguistics that Obenga was not privy to 20-40 years ago. In summary, languages begin to resemble each other the longer they are in contact with each other. If Coptic and M-E are separate languages, and the civilization of Kemet lasted over 3000 years, this is plenty of time for each language to influence each other. I have already given citations in an earlier post that discusses how the New Kingdom texts readily borrowed from M-E, thus M-E features in the so-called “last stage of the language.” I have already cited texts noting that there were different languages spoken in ancient Egypt. I will provide one more that helps to bring this whole thing home. Helmut Satzinger, in his book The Egyptian Connection: Egyptian and the Semitic Languages (2003: 231-232), although trying to make the case for a strong Semitic and Egyptian connection, provides these comments that reaffirm much of what we’re saying here: ***** Egyptian has much in common with Semitic, as compared with most Cushitic (including Omotic; cf. Lamberti 1999) and Chadic languages. But when evaluating similarities between individual branches of Afroasiatic it is crucial to take into account (1) the factor of time, (2) the historico-cultural factor, and (3) possible areal effects. (The factor of time.) Egyptian and Akkadian are attested in the third millennium BC, other Semitic languages somewhat later. The other branches of Afroasiatic are attested only recently (with the exception of the rather meagre evidence of ancient Libyan), and often enough not to a satisfactory extent. This means that comparisons must allow for a further development of several thousand years on the side of the other branches. (The historico-cultural factor.) The Afroasiatic relationship dates back to Mesolithic times. Many important cultural achievements, such as agriculture and cattle-breeding, are later. The social structure and the forms of rule have changed drastically. This is of particular importance for lexical comparison. Many terms that appear basic to us cannot be expected to be part of the inherited common vocabulary. (Characteristic examples are terms like Hsb “to reckon” and xtm “to seal”: the meaning is the same, the transcription is identical for Egyptian and Arabic, there is obviously a close relationship, but it must be other than genetic.) (Areal effects.) The prehistory of the speakers of the individual branches of Afroasiatic is controversial, as is the question of the original Afroasiatic homeland, and consequently the reconstruction of the migrations from there to their present locations. It is usually very hard to say who in the course of time used to be the neighbours of the individual groups. Historical Egypt is constituted of two populations: that of the Delta, and that of the Nile Valley. Most probably, these groups had different languages, and it is only one of them that is the ancestor of historical Egyptian. At present, many assume that Proto-Egyptian is the language of the Southerners (Naqâda culture; cf. Helck 1984; Helck, 1990). We know nothing at all about the other language. The Valley population is not indigenous. It has immigrated either from the south or from the south-west. The implications of this question concern the languages with which Egyptian may have had contact before it entered the light of history. In the south, we may expect Cushitic (including Omotic) languages, and apart from Afroasiatic, various Eastern Sudanic languages (of the Nilo-Saharan macro-phylum), and Kordofanian languages (Niger-Kordofanian macro-phylum). In the south-west, the presumable neighbours would probably have spoken either Chadic languages, or Saharan languages (again, Nilo-Saharan). But these assumptions are, of course, based on the present distribution. ***** To comment on the later part of this citation, Satzinger is noting the various pools of cultures from which derived pharaonic Egyptian culture. He is admitting to the fact that areal contacts shape language. He also attests to at least one other language in the Delta region. What we argue here is that that “other language” was in fact what was to become Coptic and the Copts rose to power in the later part of Egyptian history. Without understanding divergence/convergence and how this affects language change, one will not understand 1) the history of African languages, and 2) the nature of the work such as Mboli, Dixon, Bilolo, Thomason & Kaufman, Marten and a host of others who have been demonstrating these things since the early 90’s. Since the so-called “feminine -t” suffix was mentioned, I’ll do a separate post concerning that with demonstrations from Kalenjiin and Tshiluba.
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 05:57:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015