![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Abyssinians or habesha refer to Ethiopians. Eritreans such as the Tigrinyas ,Jebertis and the Tigre are not regarded as Abyssinians. Abyssinian was located in Ethiopia. They share similar cultures ties and are retalted which the infobox clearly states. Eritreans however are not regarded as Abyssninians or habesha, therefore natural to not include them in the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Pete unseth, searching 'Abyssinian' in Google will bring many blogs using the term for politics and nationalism, applying their own defination while not considering what linguists & archologist say. I think we will be doing good for the peace in the Horn if we inform readers on the other definition of ‘Abyssinian’ (based on what relevant experts say), other than what nationalist and politicians tell them every day for their own agenda. - EthiopianHabesha ( talk)
I had not been following this talk page, but now I see that it needs a calm voice. Maybe I can help. It is a mistake to think that every use of "Abyssinian" has the same definition. Some writers have used it in a more general sense such as all Ethiopians, others have used it in a narrower sense of of certain Semitic groups in Ethiopia, and others have used it in a narrower sense for the Amhara. We cannot impose one definition on what various writers wrote. Also, the same is true of "Habesha"; we cannot assume that Arab geographers who used this term were intending to be precise about exactly which part of the Horn of Africa they referred to, nor to which specific ethnic and linguistic groups they referred. And furthermore, we cannot equate every use of "Habesha" as always having the same exact meaning as every use of "Abyssinian".
Even today, the term Habesha can be legitimately used with differing meanings, according to the context. In discussing what time to meet, people talk about a "Habesha qät'äro" to distinguish timing from European concepts, whether they are Gurage, Kafa, or speakers of a Nilo-Saharan group. In other contexts, people will use the term "Habesha" more precisely to refer to specific ethnic groups in a way that excludes other ethnic groups.
So, though different people want to argue for wider or narrower meanings of "Abyssinian", the argument can never be settled. Now I need time to think of suggestions for improving this contentious article. Peace to all parts of the Horn of Africa! Pete unseth ( talk) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, you claimed that the root "Habesh" had various etymologies, which is true. I pointed out that many of those etymologies had nothing to do with actual Abyssinians. You then suggested that we should rename the page to Abyssinians in order to avoid this confusion; this has now been done. Therefore, the other non-Habesha etymologies either belong on their respective pages (i.e., the Abyssinian etymology here, the Sidi Bantu etymology on Sidi, the Shanqella etymology on Shanqella...), or on Habesha names and should be clearly labeled as non-Abyssinian etymologies. Soupforone ( talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Habesha is an ethnonym/ethnic name and therefore its etymology is appropriate on the local naming conventions. However, in truth, several of those etymologies don't belong there either, as they have little to do with Abyssinians. Anyway, you are quite mistaken about the biogenesis of the local Afro-Asiatic speakers. It is now understood that they actually share most of their ancestry with other Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in the Nile Valley [6] [7]. As regards the Ge'ez language, it may or may not have evolved in the Horn. What is more certain is that the Proto-Semitic language arose in the Arabian peninsula or Near East, and the Semitic languages (including either Ge'ez or its parent language) were later adopted by other ancient Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in Africa. Soupforone ( talk) 02:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The naming conventions page was until recently titled Habesha name, and the etymology of the Habesha ethnic name is itself a naming convention. Therefore, that is where the etymologies belong, provided that they indeed are Abyssinian-related. If not, that should tell you they weren't relevant to begin with. Al-Habash is on the ancient Abyssinia, which likewise has zero to do with Bantus and other non-Abyssinians. As for the biogenesis of the Ethiopian Semitic speakers, it's all explained in the two link-thrus above - scroll down to Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians if for whatever reason you are unable to read the whole thing. Also see stratum if you do not understand what a linguistic substrate is and what this implies for the Ethiopian Semitic languages. The notion of a mixed language was an inaccurate belief that some earlier philologists held. Linguists now know that there are few if any such languages, but instead all languages have varying degrees of influences from other languages, such as in the form of loanwords. The Ethiopian Semitic languages are actual Semitic languages (not Ethiopian-Cushitic "mixed languages"), and they have Cushitic substrates because those are the languages that were originally spoken in their speech area. Soupforone ( talk) 16:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Munro-Hay asserts that the ancient Greek designation Aethiopia alternately served as either a specific allusion to Nubia/Meroe or as a generic term for Sub-Saharan Africa. He likewise points out that only after the decline in power of Meroe did the Aksumite kings begin to use "Ethiopia" as a designation for their own kingdom. Also note that the exact meaning of ancient Aethiopia is uncertain, as there were Leucaethiopes (White Aethiopians) in the Sahel belt and in some areas further south, just as there are still various ancestral stocks below the Sahara. Anyway, please see the table here for the substrate influences on the Ethiopian Semitic languages. Soupforone ( talk) 02:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Lipinski has a good, easy to understand explanation of the linguistic fruition of the Ethiopian Semitic languages [12]. Soupforone ( talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, please no double standards. My correction of the etymology on Ethiopia indeed wasn't discussed since I was in part correcting your own earlier undiscussed citekill of Yimene et al. Anyway, note that Appiah is not a linguist like Lipinski. Also note that ancient Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions have been found throughout the Horn, from the Abyssinian highlands to northern Somalia to Socotra. So yes, there certainly was an actual Sabaean and Himyarite-speaking presence in the area during antiquity. Soupforone ( talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, as per WP:CITEKILL, "one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient". Two or more may be used specifically for preventing linkrot, but it's superfluous since the link was/is not dead. Also note that your justification for blanking my Aethiopia etymological corrections was that they were undiscussed/not agreed upon. That same rationale applies to your link formatting; no double standards per WP:BRD. As regards the linguistics, Edward Lipinski is a renowned linguist, whereas Kwame Anthony Appiah is a renowned philosopher. Per WP:MAINSTREAM, actual scholarly experts on the topic take precedence over non-experts. The expert on the Ethiopian Semitic languages is Lipinski, the linguist and orientalist. Given this, I suggest rewording the paragraph according to Lipinski's expertise and presenting a draft of it below for consideration. Regarding the Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions, I don't understand what exactly "the glory... on" is supposed to mean. Anyway, please see here for some of the ancient tablets and rock art areas [15] [16] [17] [18]. Soupforone ( talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, the fact that you think another editor altering your contribution is automatically "retaliation" is troubling; especially since almost every other editor that has edited on this page has at some point done that (whether myself, Zenkenyan, Otakrem or Fortuna). Wikipedia is a collaborative, open encyclopedia - that's it's very nature. Your initial, undiscussed change to the etymology in Ethiopia also was not minor. You changed the phrase "in English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was also once historically known as Abyssinia, derived from Habesh, an early Arabic form of the Ethiopian Semitic name "Ḥabaśāt" (unvocalized "ḤBŚT")" to read "in English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was also once historically known as Abyssinia, derived from Al-Habasha, whom Arabs used it as a translation for the Greek word Aethiopia". That is a complete alteration in meaning, not a mere formatting change. It's also not supported by the citekilled links, which were to Munro-Hay and Yimene. Yimene actually indicates that "it seems that some Southern Arabian tribes were referred to as "Habashat", and that the term "Abyssinians" is derived from "Habash"" [19], not that "Abyssinia" was derived from the Arabic "Al-Habasha". For his part, Munro-Hay doesn't even mention the anglicization of "Habash", much less of "Al-Habasha" [20]. I tried to fix this by explaining how the Aksumites actually came to adopt the original "Aethiopia" designation of ancient Nubia as per George Hatke [21]. However, you objected on the grounds that it was undiscussed. Therefore, per WP:BRD, the correct thing to do is to discuss the matter for consensus as we are doing now, not re-insert the misinterpretations, citekills and original research. I suggest this wording:
As regards the Ethiopian Semitic linguistics, Lipinski is an established linguist and specialist in the Semitic languages, with his own page on the international LINGUIST directory operated by Indiana University's Department of Linguistics [22]. Appiah doesn't have one because he's a philosopher, not a linguist. This is important per WP:FRINGE-- "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight". Given this, please present a paragraph below for consideration based on the Lipinski's linguistic expertise, as I have done above with the Aethiopia etymology. Soupforone ( talk) 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, the etymological text that you were reverting to was largely original research and citekill, not a stable version at all. Neither is acceptable whether they have been there 10 years or 10 minutes - WP:BURDEN instructs on such text that one should "not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." Your interpretations of Yimene and Munro-Hay are also inaccurate, as demonstrated above. When an editor makes a WP:BOLD edit like your initial one, it is either accepted or ends up in the discussion cycle. If reverted, the appropriate thing to then do per WP:BRD is discuss the matter on the talk page for consensus, not to try and forcefully reinsert the controversial edit. This is why I stopped insisting on my Aethiopia etymological corrections out of courtesy, and instead brought it here on the talk page for discussion; you are obligated to do the same per policy. WP:BRD indicates this plainly and in bold-- "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."
As regards the Ethiopian Semitic linguistics, the actual wikitext has nothing to do with archaeology (nor are Appiah and Gates archaeologists). Here it is:
Per WP:RELIABLE, the word "source" has three related meanings on Wikipedia: (1) "the piece of work itself (the article, book)," (2) "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)," and (3) "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". The policy also notes that "any of the three can affect reliability." Pointing out that Appiah and Gates' work was published by Oxford University Press is fine. Nonetheless, the fact remains that these writers are not linguists, let alone experts in the Semitic languages like Lipinski is. Actually, looking at the wikitext above, the paragraph doesn't appear to correspond with what they wrote anyway. Appiah and Gates make no mention of Shewa and Wellega [24], and the rest of the wording seems instead to be drawn from Lipinski [25]. Given this, I suggest the following rewording based on Lipinski-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C.. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the incoming Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands, the liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, whereas the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, this linguistic substratum is more marked toward the lowlands." Soupforone ( talk) 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, reinserting original research is unacceptable on Wikipedia, irrespective of whether or not it existed within an earlier iteration of the Aethipia etymology. I have therefore removed it per WP:OR, but kept the rest of the etymology as it was before your initial edit. Please do not attempt to reinsert the o/r again since all you would be doing is violating that policy and compromising the passage's reliability.
With that noted, you indicated in the Ethiopian Semitic wikitext that "some of the Semitic speaking (Ge'ez) people settled in the northern lowlands (north Eritrea) while others moved and settled as far south as south Shewa; eastward upto Hararghe highlands and westward upto east Damot (east Wellega)". However, what Michael Keiner actually indicates is that "the Gafat at the time were an important, probably even single largest ethnos in eastern Damot and western" -- no mention of any Ge'ez speakers. Elsewhere in that work, David L. Appleyard actually explains that Gafat is a Gunan-Gurage language (not a Ge'ez dialect), and was apparently supplanted in usage by Amharic [26]. You also appear to be confusing the eras. Kleiner is referring to the conquest of Abyssinia during the 1500s, when Ge'ez was limited to liturgical use and the Kingdom of Aksum had long since died out, not to the Aksumite period of the early millenium, when Ge'ez was the state language of Aksum. This is precisely why the citekill policy exists in the first place since it's harder to pick out such textual misinterpretations under a barrage of random urls. Anyway, per WP:CIV, please desist from speculating on what you think I may think (but did not actually indicate) and focus instead on the actual wikitext. Appiah and Gates do not indicate what was claimed, as demonstrated above. They also write that the Tigrinya language belongs to the Semitic family of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping, and that the Tigrinya are descendants of indigenous Cushitic peoples and Semitic peoples from the Arabian Peninsula. This pertains to the Tigrinya specifically, not to Abyssinians as a whole as you have somehow concluded. As to Lipinski, he doesn't assert anything about "mixed" origins for Abyssinians either, linguistic or otherwise. He does, though, apparently allude to Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic as the other Cushitic substrates in the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage languages. The passage should therefore read-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C.. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the incoming Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands, the liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, whereas the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the lowlands." Soupforone ( talk) 17:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, I already fixed those Aethiopia etymological claims, but you removed the passage under the pretext that it was undiscussed (although I was in fact correcting original research). This means my actual corrections takes precedence, not any hypothetical corrections of that same original research. Anyway, discussion and agreement comes first per WP:BRD.
As to Ge'ez, Lipinski is not referring to it or Gafat when he speaks of the South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries BC. He is talking about ancient Himyarite and Sabaean inscriptions. The oldest Ethiopian Semitic inscription is in Ge'ez, and it's actually only attested to the 4th century AD [27]. Thus, the ancient settlements that Lipinski is alluding to are actually of Sabaean and Himyarite speakers, not of Ethiopian-Semitic speakers. Here is therefore better wording-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C. [28]. However, the earliest attestation of an Ethiopian Semitic language, Ge'ez, dates only to the 4th century A.D. [29]. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." [30] Soupforone ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, the diagrams and Robertshaw link you pointed me to are speculative; they're not based on actual epigraphs. The earliest written attestation of an Ethiopian-Semitic language actually only dates to the early Common Era. Lipinski himself indicates that Ge'ez is attested from the 2nd century AD, based on epigraphic texts that were found at Aksum in Tigray [34]. One of those diagrams also contradicts your argument that the Aksumites' Ge'ez was the parent language to Gafat and other Ethiopian-Semitic languages since it has only Tigrinya and Tigre branching directly off of Ge'ez [35]. I described Ge'ez as liturgical because the actual phrase is on the substrates in the current Ethiopian-Semitic languages, and Ge'ez today is a liturgical language and has been for several centuries now. Anyway, if "liturgical" is somehow too confusing I'm alright with dropping it.
However, Lipinski obviously can't be repeated verbatim since that would be a WP:COPYVIO. The average reader should be able to understand that the wikiphrase "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C." means essentially the same thing as Lipinski's assertion that "Semites from ancient Yemen settled in Ethiopia... The South Arabian inscriptions found in Ethiopia, especially those of the 5th-4th centuries B.C., prove the existence of ancient relations between southwest Arabia and Ethiopia, and might indicate that Semitic was brought to Eritrea and Ethiopia from Yemen in the first millenium B.C., if not earlier." This also means that Lipinski's "South Arabian inscriptions" of the 5th-4th centuries BC are indeed likely an allusion to Sabaean and Himyarite epigraphs, and not to Ge'ez inscriptions since he indicates that Ge'ez is only attested from the 2nd century AD. What scholar indicates that "3,000 years old Ge'ez people did not behave like Sabeans, were not influenced by them and make up the ethnic, linguistic and cultural stock for Axumite & pre-Axumite kingdoms", and what exactly does "not behave like" even mean? Note that phrases like "some scholars" are vague WP:WEASEL words, so you'll have to be more precise. Please specify this here so that we may finalize the appropriate wording for the paragraph. Soupforone ( talk) 15:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, per policy we should indeed rely on expert linguists. Peter Robertshaw is an archaeologist; linguistics are outside his field of expertise [37]. The professional linguists such as Lipinski and Kees Versteegh indicate that the earliest written attestation of Ge'ez (the oldest Ethiopian Semitic language) only dates to the turn of the Common Era [38]. This is based on actual inscriptions in Ge'ez, which were found at Aksum. Manuel Sanz Ledesma is a linguist too, but it's unclear what exactly the ~600 BC date for Ge'ez in his diagram is predicated on. Ostensibly (given the time period), he seems to be basing this on the establishment of the pre-Aksumite kingdom of D'mt. However, epigraphs that have been found at this kingdom's capital, Yeha in Tigray, are in Sabaean rather than in Ge'ez [39]. Also, if by "not behave like" what Robertshaw actually means is that the Aksumites used different architectural techniques than the Sabaeans and Himyarites, then this is what we should indicate. Soupforone ( talk) 16:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides the grammar, there are two problems with the wording above. The phrase asserting that "Ge'ez language, developed by 1,000 BC is the oldest of Semitic languages to be spoken in the region and is beleived to be from which Ethiopian Semitic languages descended from" is inaccurate. As explained, the oldest Semitic language to be spoken in the region is actually Sabaean, which was used in the kingdom of D'mt. Ge'ez, the oldest Ethiopian Semitic language, is only attested from the early Common Era onwards, during the ensuing Aksumite period. Also, Lipinski does not indicate that Amharic, Argoba, Harari and Gurage are southern Semitics. He's talking about languages here, not populations (hence, Amharic instead of Amhara). Given that, this phrasing would work better-- "Ancient inscriptions in Sabaean have been discovered at Yeha in the northern Tigray region, which served as the capital of the pre-Aksumite Kingdom of D'mt. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C.. However, the earliest attestation of an Ethiopian Semitic language, Ge'ez, dates only to the 2nd century A.D., during the ensuing Kingdom of Aksum. [40] By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). [41] Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." [42] Soupforone ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Soupforone, As Pete said below there are also other linguists proposing Horn region as homeland for Proto-semitic, after all it is also proposed to be the homeland of proto-Afro-Asiatic as well. Since it is an encyclopedia various views must be presented as per NPOV and we cannot choose linguists that supports only ones view. Besides, even Lipnski did not say semitics originated from Yemen "for sure" but instead he preferred to say "Sabean inscription found in Ethiopia indicates semitic languages may have been introduced to the region from Yemen". For this reason I will no more support the inclusion of the whole paragraph that we have been discussing about so far. - EthiopianHabesha ( talk)
It looks alright except for certain grammatical errors ("more stronger on"). The phrase asserting that Eastern Sidamo/Highland East Cushitic was the initial substratum for Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage is also awkward. Lipinski doesn't indicate whether this was the first or a later linguistic influence. The following would therefore work better-- "By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." Soupforone ( talk) 02:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, Lipinski writes that "Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were influenced also by Oromo and by Somali". He doesn't assert that the "substratum of Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages that includes Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were then influenced also by Oromo and by Somali". "Then" indicates a later moment in a given chronology. The wording that the "Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences" is thus more accurate. As to the actual origin of the Ethiopian Semitic languages, none is hypothesized above. That the local populations originally spoke Cushitic idioms does not necessarily have any bearing on Ge'ez's area of origin; it is also something Lipinski indicates ("the Semitic languages of Eritrea and Ethiopia occupy a geographical area in which Cushitic was and still is employed"). Anyway, Highland East Cushitic is the main substrate in Harari and Gurage; it also has an influence on Amharic, whose primary substrate is indeed Agaw. Lipinski conveys this rather nicely. This wording is therefore workable-- "By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." Soupforone ( talk) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Abyssinians or habesha refer to Ethiopians. Eritreans such as the Tigrinyas ,Jebertis and the Tigre are not regarded as Abyssinians. Abyssinian was located in Ethiopia. They share similar cultures ties and are retalted which the infobox clearly states. Eritreans however are not regarded as Abyssninians or habesha, therefore natural to not include them in the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Pete unseth, searching 'Abyssinian' in Google will bring many blogs using the term for politics and nationalism, applying their own defination while not considering what linguists & archologist say. I think we will be doing good for the peace in the Horn if we inform readers on the other definition of ‘Abyssinian’ (based on what relevant experts say), other than what nationalist and politicians tell them every day for their own agenda. - EthiopianHabesha ( talk)
I had not been following this talk page, but now I see that it needs a calm voice. Maybe I can help. It is a mistake to think that every use of "Abyssinian" has the same definition. Some writers have used it in a more general sense such as all Ethiopians, others have used it in a narrower sense of of certain Semitic groups in Ethiopia, and others have used it in a narrower sense for the Amhara. We cannot impose one definition on what various writers wrote. Also, the same is true of "Habesha"; we cannot assume that Arab geographers who used this term were intending to be precise about exactly which part of the Horn of Africa they referred to, nor to which specific ethnic and linguistic groups they referred. And furthermore, we cannot equate every use of "Habesha" as always having the same exact meaning as every use of "Abyssinian".
Even today, the term Habesha can be legitimately used with differing meanings, according to the context. In discussing what time to meet, people talk about a "Habesha qät'äro" to distinguish timing from European concepts, whether they are Gurage, Kafa, or speakers of a Nilo-Saharan group. In other contexts, people will use the term "Habesha" more precisely to refer to specific ethnic groups in a way that excludes other ethnic groups.
So, though different people want to argue for wider or narrower meanings of "Abyssinian", the argument can never be settled. Now I need time to think of suggestions for improving this contentious article. Peace to all parts of the Horn of Africa! Pete unseth ( talk) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, you claimed that the root "Habesh" had various etymologies, which is true. I pointed out that many of those etymologies had nothing to do with actual Abyssinians. You then suggested that we should rename the page to Abyssinians in order to avoid this confusion; this has now been done. Therefore, the other non-Habesha etymologies either belong on their respective pages (i.e., the Abyssinian etymology here, the Sidi Bantu etymology on Sidi, the Shanqella etymology on Shanqella...), or on Habesha names and should be clearly labeled as non-Abyssinian etymologies. Soupforone ( talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Habesha is an ethnonym/ethnic name and therefore its etymology is appropriate on the local naming conventions. However, in truth, several of those etymologies don't belong there either, as they have little to do with Abyssinians. Anyway, you are quite mistaken about the biogenesis of the local Afro-Asiatic speakers. It is now understood that they actually share most of their ancestry with other Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in the Nile Valley [6] [7]. As regards the Ge'ez language, it may or may not have evolved in the Horn. What is more certain is that the Proto-Semitic language arose in the Arabian peninsula or Near East, and the Semitic languages (including either Ge'ez or its parent language) were later adopted by other ancient Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in Africa. Soupforone ( talk) 02:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The naming conventions page was until recently titled Habesha name, and the etymology of the Habesha ethnic name is itself a naming convention. Therefore, that is where the etymologies belong, provided that they indeed are Abyssinian-related. If not, that should tell you they weren't relevant to begin with. Al-Habash is on the ancient Abyssinia, which likewise has zero to do with Bantus and other non-Abyssinians. As for the biogenesis of the Ethiopian Semitic speakers, it's all explained in the two link-thrus above - scroll down to Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians if for whatever reason you are unable to read the whole thing. Also see stratum if you do not understand what a linguistic substrate is and what this implies for the Ethiopian Semitic languages. The notion of a mixed language was an inaccurate belief that some earlier philologists held. Linguists now know that there are few if any such languages, but instead all languages have varying degrees of influences from other languages, such as in the form of loanwords. The Ethiopian Semitic languages are actual Semitic languages (not Ethiopian-Cushitic "mixed languages"), and they have Cushitic substrates because those are the languages that were originally spoken in their speech area. Soupforone ( talk) 16:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Munro-Hay asserts that the ancient Greek designation Aethiopia alternately served as either a specific allusion to Nubia/Meroe or as a generic term for Sub-Saharan Africa. He likewise points out that only after the decline in power of Meroe did the Aksumite kings begin to use "Ethiopia" as a designation for their own kingdom. Also note that the exact meaning of ancient Aethiopia is uncertain, as there were Leucaethiopes (White Aethiopians) in the Sahel belt and in some areas further south, just as there are still various ancestral stocks below the Sahara. Anyway, please see the table here for the substrate influences on the Ethiopian Semitic languages. Soupforone ( talk) 02:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Lipinski has a good, easy to understand explanation of the linguistic fruition of the Ethiopian Semitic languages [12]. Soupforone ( talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, please no double standards. My correction of the etymology on Ethiopia indeed wasn't discussed since I was in part correcting your own earlier undiscussed citekill of Yimene et al. Anyway, note that Appiah is not a linguist like Lipinski. Also note that ancient Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions have been found throughout the Horn, from the Abyssinian highlands to northern Somalia to Socotra. So yes, there certainly was an actual Sabaean and Himyarite-speaking presence in the area during antiquity. Soupforone ( talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, as per WP:CITEKILL, "one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient". Two or more may be used specifically for preventing linkrot, but it's superfluous since the link was/is not dead. Also note that your justification for blanking my Aethiopia etymological corrections was that they were undiscussed/not agreed upon. That same rationale applies to your link formatting; no double standards per WP:BRD. As regards the linguistics, Edward Lipinski is a renowned linguist, whereas Kwame Anthony Appiah is a renowned philosopher. Per WP:MAINSTREAM, actual scholarly experts on the topic take precedence over non-experts. The expert on the Ethiopian Semitic languages is Lipinski, the linguist and orientalist. Given this, I suggest rewording the paragraph according to Lipinski's expertise and presenting a draft of it below for consideration. Regarding the Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions, I don't understand what exactly "the glory... on" is supposed to mean. Anyway, please see here for some of the ancient tablets and rock art areas [15] [16] [17] [18]. Soupforone ( talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, the fact that you think another editor altering your contribution is automatically "retaliation" is troubling; especially since almost every other editor that has edited on this page has at some point done that (whether myself, Zenkenyan, Otakrem or Fortuna). Wikipedia is a collaborative, open encyclopedia - that's it's very nature. Your initial, undiscussed change to the etymology in Ethiopia also was not minor. You changed the phrase "in English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was also once historically known as Abyssinia, derived from Habesh, an early Arabic form of the Ethiopian Semitic name "Ḥabaśāt" (unvocalized "ḤBŚT")" to read "in English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was also once historically known as Abyssinia, derived from Al-Habasha, whom Arabs used it as a translation for the Greek word Aethiopia". That is a complete alteration in meaning, not a mere formatting change. It's also not supported by the citekilled links, which were to Munro-Hay and Yimene. Yimene actually indicates that "it seems that some Southern Arabian tribes were referred to as "Habashat", and that the term "Abyssinians" is derived from "Habash"" [19], not that "Abyssinia" was derived from the Arabic "Al-Habasha". For his part, Munro-Hay doesn't even mention the anglicization of "Habash", much less of "Al-Habasha" [20]. I tried to fix this by explaining how the Aksumites actually came to adopt the original "Aethiopia" designation of ancient Nubia as per George Hatke [21]. However, you objected on the grounds that it was undiscussed. Therefore, per WP:BRD, the correct thing to do is to discuss the matter for consensus as we are doing now, not re-insert the misinterpretations, citekills and original research. I suggest this wording:
As regards the Ethiopian Semitic linguistics, Lipinski is an established linguist and specialist in the Semitic languages, with his own page on the international LINGUIST directory operated by Indiana University's Department of Linguistics [22]. Appiah doesn't have one because he's a philosopher, not a linguist. This is important per WP:FRINGE-- "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight". Given this, please present a paragraph below for consideration based on the Lipinski's linguistic expertise, as I have done above with the Aethiopia etymology. Soupforone ( talk) 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, the etymological text that you were reverting to was largely original research and citekill, not a stable version at all. Neither is acceptable whether they have been there 10 years or 10 minutes - WP:BURDEN instructs on such text that one should "not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." Your interpretations of Yimene and Munro-Hay are also inaccurate, as demonstrated above. When an editor makes a WP:BOLD edit like your initial one, it is either accepted or ends up in the discussion cycle. If reverted, the appropriate thing to then do per WP:BRD is discuss the matter on the talk page for consensus, not to try and forcefully reinsert the controversial edit. This is why I stopped insisting on my Aethiopia etymological corrections out of courtesy, and instead brought it here on the talk page for discussion; you are obligated to do the same per policy. WP:BRD indicates this plainly and in bold-- "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."
As regards the Ethiopian Semitic linguistics, the actual wikitext has nothing to do with archaeology (nor are Appiah and Gates archaeologists). Here it is:
Per WP:RELIABLE, the word "source" has three related meanings on Wikipedia: (1) "the piece of work itself (the article, book)," (2) "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)," and (3) "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". The policy also notes that "any of the three can affect reliability." Pointing out that Appiah and Gates' work was published by Oxford University Press is fine. Nonetheless, the fact remains that these writers are not linguists, let alone experts in the Semitic languages like Lipinski is. Actually, looking at the wikitext above, the paragraph doesn't appear to correspond with what they wrote anyway. Appiah and Gates make no mention of Shewa and Wellega [24], and the rest of the wording seems instead to be drawn from Lipinski [25]. Given this, I suggest the following rewording based on Lipinski-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C.. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the incoming Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands, the liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, whereas the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, this linguistic substratum is more marked toward the lowlands." Soupforone ( talk) 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, reinserting original research is unacceptable on Wikipedia, irrespective of whether or not it existed within an earlier iteration of the Aethipia etymology. I have therefore removed it per WP:OR, but kept the rest of the etymology as it was before your initial edit. Please do not attempt to reinsert the o/r again since all you would be doing is violating that policy and compromising the passage's reliability.
With that noted, you indicated in the Ethiopian Semitic wikitext that "some of the Semitic speaking (Ge'ez) people settled in the northern lowlands (north Eritrea) while others moved and settled as far south as south Shewa; eastward upto Hararghe highlands and westward upto east Damot (east Wellega)". However, what Michael Keiner actually indicates is that "the Gafat at the time were an important, probably even single largest ethnos in eastern Damot and western" -- no mention of any Ge'ez speakers. Elsewhere in that work, David L. Appleyard actually explains that Gafat is a Gunan-Gurage language (not a Ge'ez dialect), and was apparently supplanted in usage by Amharic [26]. You also appear to be confusing the eras. Kleiner is referring to the conquest of Abyssinia during the 1500s, when Ge'ez was limited to liturgical use and the Kingdom of Aksum had long since died out, not to the Aksumite period of the early millenium, when Ge'ez was the state language of Aksum. This is precisely why the citekill policy exists in the first place since it's harder to pick out such textual misinterpretations under a barrage of random urls. Anyway, per WP:CIV, please desist from speculating on what you think I may think (but did not actually indicate) and focus instead on the actual wikitext. Appiah and Gates do not indicate what was claimed, as demonstrated above. They also write that the Tigrinya language belongs to the Semitic family of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping, and that the Tigrinya are descendants of indigenous Cushitic peoples and Semitic peoples from the Arabian Peninsula. This pertains to the Tigrinya specifically, not to Abyssinians as a whole as you have somehow concluded. As to Lipinski, he doesn't assert anything about "mixed" origins for Abyssinians either, linguistic or otherwise. He does, though, apparently allude to Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic as the other Cushitic substrates in the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage languages. The passage should therefore read-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C.. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the incoming Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands, the liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, whereas the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the lowlands." Soupforone ( talk) 17:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, I already fixed those Aethiopia etymological claims, but you removed the passage under the pretext that it was undiscussed (although I was in fact correcting original research). This means my actual corrections takes precedence, not any hypothetical corrections of that same original research. Anyway, discussion and agreement comes first per WP:BRD.
As to Ge'ez, Lipinski is not referring to it or Gafat when he speaks of the South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries BC. He is talking about ancient Himyarite and Sabaean inscriptions. The oldest Ethiopian Semitic inscription is in Ge'ez, and it's actually only attested to the 4th century AD [27]. Thus, the ancient settlements that Lipinski is alluding to are actually of Sabaean and Himyarite speakers, not of Ethiopian-Semitic speakers. Here is therefore better wording-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C. [28]. However, the earliest attestation of an Ethiopian Semitic language, Ge'ez, dates only to the 4th century A.D. [29]. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." [30] Soupforone ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, the diagrams and Robertshaw link you pointed me to are speculative; they're not based on actual epigraphs. The earliest written attestation of an Ethiopian-Semitic language actually only dates to the early Common Era. Lipinski himself indicates that Ge'ez is attested from the 2nd century AD, based on epigraphic texts that were found at Aksum in Tigray [34]. One of those diagrams also contradicts your argument that the Aksumites' Ge'ez was the parent language to Gafat and other Ethiopian-Semitic languages since it has only Tigrinya and Tigre branching directly off of Ge'ez [35]. I described Ge'ez as liturgical because the actual phrase is on the substrates in the current Ethiopian-Semitic languages, and Ge'ez today is a liturgical language and has been for several centuries now. Anyway, if "liturgical" is somehow too confusing I'm alright with dropping it.
However, Lipinski obviously can't be repeated verbatim since that would be a WP:COPYVIO. The average reader should be able to understand that the wikiphrase "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C." means essentially the same thing as Lipinski's assertion that "Semites from ancient Yemen settled in Ethiopia... The South Arabian inscriptions found in Ethiopia, especially those of the 5th-4th centuries B.C., prove the existence of ancient relations between southwest Arabia and Ethiopia, and might indicate that Semitic was brought to Eritrea and Ethiopia from Yemen in the first millenium B.C., if not earlier." This also means that Lipinski's "South Arabian inscriptions" of the 5th-4th centuries BC are indeed likely an allusion to Sabaean and Himyarite epigraphs, and not to Ge'ez inscriptions since he indicates that Ge'ez is only attested from the 2nd century AD. What scholar indicates that "3,000 years old Ge'ez people did not behave like Sabeans, were not influenced by them and make up the ethnic, linguistic and cultural stock for Axumite & pre-Axumite kingdoms", and what exactly does "not behave like" even mean? Note that phrases like "some scholars" are vague WP:WEASEL words, so you'll have to be more precise. Please specify this here so that we may finalize the appropriate wording for the paragraph. Soupforone ( talk) 15:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, per policy we should indeed rely on expert linguists. Peter Robertshaw is an archaeologist; linguistics are outside his field of expertise [37]. The professional linguists such as Lipinski and Kees Versteegh indicate that the earliest written attestation of Ge'ez (the oldest Ethiopian Semitic language) only dates to the turn of the Common Era [38]. This is based on actual inscriptions in Ge'ez, which were found at Aksum. Manuel Sanz Ledesma is a linguist too, but it's unclear what exactly the ~600 BC date for Ge'ez in his diagram is predicated on. Ostensibly (given the time period), he seems to be basing this on the establishment of the pre-Aksumite kingdom of D'mt. However, epigraphs that have been found at this kingdom's capital, Yeha in Tigray, are in Sabaean rather than in Ge'ez [39]. Also, if by "not behave like" what Robertshaw actually means is that the Aksumites used different architectural techniques than the Sabaeans and Himyarites, then this is what we should indicate. Soupforone ( talk) 16:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Besides the grammar, there are two problems with the wording above. The phrase asserting that "Ge'ez language, developed by 1,000 BC is the oldest of Semitic languages to be spoken in the region and is beleived to be from which Ethiopian Semitic languages descended from" is inaccurate. As explained, the oldest Semitic language to be spoken in the region is actually Sabaean, which was used in the kingdom of D'mt. Ge'ez, the oldest Ethiopian Semitic language, is only attested from the early Common Era onwards, during the ensuing Aksumite period. Also, Lipinski does not indicate that Amharic, Argoba, Harari and Gurage are southern Semitics. He's talking about languages here, not populations (hence, Amharic instead of Amhara). Given that, this phrasing would work better-- "Ancient inscriptions in Sabaean have been discovered at Yeha in the northern Tigray region, which served as the capital of the pre-Aksumite Kingdom of D'mt. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C.. However, the earliest attestation of an Ethiopian Semitic language, Ge'ez, dates only to the 2nd century A.D., during the ensuing Kingdom of Aksum. [40] By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). [41] Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." [42] Soupforone ( talk) 03:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Soupforone, As Pete said below there are also other linguists proposing Horn region as homeland for Proto-semitic, after all it is also proposed to be the homeland of proto-Afro-Asiatic as well. Since it is an encyclopedia various views must be presented as per NPOV and we cannot choose linguists that supports only ones view. Besides, even Lipnski did not say semitics originated from Yemen "for sure" but instead he preferred to say "Sabean inscription found in Ethiopia indicates semitic languages may have been introduced to the region from Yemen". For this reason I will no more support the inclusion of the whole paragraph that we have been discussing about so far. - EthiopianHabesha ( talk)
It looks alright except for certain grammatical errors ("more stronger on"). The phrase asserting that Eastern Sidamo/Highland East Cushitic was the initial substratum for Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage is also awkward. Lipinski doesn't indicate whether this was the first or a later linguistic influence. The following would therefore work better-- "By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." Soupforone ( talk) 02:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
EthiopianHabesha, Lipinski writes that "Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were influenced also by Oromo and by Somali". He doesn't assert that the "substratum of Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages that includes Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were then influenced also by Oromo and by Somali". "Then" indicates a later moment in a given chronology. The wording that the "Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences" is thus more accurate. As to the actual origin of the Ethiopian Semitic languages, none is hypothesized above. That the local populations originally spoke Cushitic idioms does not necessarily have any bearing on Ge'ez's area of origin; it is also something Lipinski indicates ("the Semitic languages of Eritrea and Ethiopia occupy a geographical area in which Cushitic was and still is employed"). Anyway, Highland East Cushitic is the main substrate in Harari and Gurage; it also has an influence on Amharic, whose primary substrate is indeed Agaw. Lipinski conveys this rather nicely. This wording is therefore workable-- "By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." Soupforone ( talk) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
References