![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
The article states that Egyptian is the closest of the Afroasiatic languages to Semitic, but then proposes that Proto-Semitic entered the Middle East paradoxically from the Horn of Africa!!! This seems to be a very paradoxical arrangement, as Afro-Asiatic languages probably only appeared in the horn of Africa after an emigration of Cushitic peoples from the Sudan, some 3,000 years BCE!!
Given the fact that Egyptian is the closest of the Afro-Asiatic languages to Semitic, isn't it more likely that ProtoSemitic speakers travelled across from Egypt to Sinai, possibly at the end of PPNB stage, with the Harifian hunter gatherers, to form what Jaris Yurins calls the Circum Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex in the period from 6,000-5,600 BCE? It was these peoples who, as a part of the Arabian bifacial complex, introduced the neolithic into Southern Arabia.
John D. Croft 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is raised: If there was a language called Proto-Semitic, then was there a specific group of Semites that spoke that language known as Proto-Semites or the Proto-Semitic people?
we cannot just say "generally reconstructed" here. There is no consensus on the exact PS sound system. You need to say who reconstructs this particular system. Afaik, the main division is between people basing PS on Akkadian vs. on Arabic. The present version seems to just "fill up" the system with lots of phonemes, so that all descended systems can be comfortably explained. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
, |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, |origdate=
, and |coauthors=
(
help)Point of articulation | Manner of articulation | Degree of aperture | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Voiceless | Voiced | Emphatic | ||
Bilabial | p | b | Plosive | |
m | Nasal | |||
Interdental | t̠ | d̠ | t̠̣ | Fricative |
d̠̣ | Lateralized | |||
Dental | t | d | ṭ | Plosive |
s | z | ṣ | Fricative | |
l | Lateral | |||
ś | Lateralized | |||
r | Vibrant | |||
n | Nasal | |||
Prepalatal | š | Fricative | ||
Dorsopalatal | k | g | q | Plosive |
Velar | ḫ | ġ | Fricative | |
Pharyngeal | ḥ | ‘ | Fricative | |
Laryngeal | ’ | Plosive | ||
h | Fricative |
Those sources (other than Steiner and Faber) are pretty antiquated, another reason Saenz-Badillos is a poor source for Proto-Semitic.
Why no mention of South Arabian alphabet?-- JWB 21:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
the Canaanite table entries seem to just echo the Proto-Semitic ones. I suppose they should be changed to transliterations of the Phoenician letters in the same column? dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I found this article extremely hard to follow, mostly because there is no use of IPA. I know these symbols are widely used to represent afro-asiatic languages, but to a person like me whose previous knowledge of language pronunciation is in IPA, this is really hard to follow.-- ikiroid | ( talk) 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Either the reconstructed phonemes are just abstract labels for correspondences among the various attested languages or they are intended to have some phonetic value. If they're just abstract labels, it doesn't matter what symbols are used; they could be P1, P2, ... (for "phoneme-1" etc.), or slightly more mnemonic symbols, but it makes no difference in principle. I doubt that anyone intends that. The alternative is that they express some idea as to what they sounded like, no matter how tentative, rough, or approximate, just as descriptive terms like "interdental fricative" do. In that case, there is simply no excuse for using any symbols other than IPA. It's much easier for a Semitist to guess what is meant by IPA symbols, even if they are not what s/he is accustomed to using, than for someone who is new to Semitic linguistics to understand the ideas being expressed while at the same time also trying to keep track of a whole host of idiosyncratic symbols. (I'm a Semitic linguist myself.) Maybe in a book for Semitic specialists the traditional symbols are fine (though as far as I'm concerned they ought to be abandoned) but certainly not in a work for the general public.
what is the basis of your change ( [1](, Yhever? Any reference? Or how will we tell if this was an improvement? dab (ᛏ) 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there seems to be a major problem here. Certain recent edits on the subject of the sound inventory are making me crack ;)
You could say that all Proto-Semitic sounds are theoretical and tentative so it seems meaningless to say that some are. Actually, I know there could be a big long paragraph on the controversies of some Proto-Semitic sounds, so maybe that would be better than this arcane asterisking that nobody outside of our tiny Proto-Semitic world understands. Wouldn't that be swell? -- Glengordon01 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In the sound table, the link underlines make it difficult to distinguish the alveolar stops from the interdental fricatives, since the latter are usually indicated with a macron below. Is there anything we can do about this? -- April Arcus 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the links should be taken out because they are out of context. This table is showing us the sounds of Proto-Semitic, but the links are taking us to letters common in the Semitic writing systems. We shouldn't be mixing up language with writing. Proto-Semitic was spoken long before the alphabet came into existence! Perhaps to the ire of others, I think I'm going to take them out and if someone has a good reason to revert, let us know. -- Glengordon01 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
i just made a bunch of updates to this page, including adding IPA symbols where the traditional semitic ones are non-IPA, and adding phonology for modern hebrew and modern south arabian. for the latter two, i unavoidably had to use IPA, and now the mixture of IPA and traditional semitic looks really stupid. let's please just use IPA everywhere, with the traditional semitic representation in parens in the proto-semitic column, rather than the other way around.
Benwing 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds sensible. Keeping IPA the default throughout Wikipedia respects modern linguistic standards afterall! I think if the masses are too stupid to learn IPA, a pox on their houses. Science shouldn't be dumbed-down for the sake of mental troglodytes, hehe :) -- Glengordon01 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK with me. Benwing 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I rewrote the whole table to use IPA, with Semiticist symbols in parens. Benwing 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
sound changes fall squarely within phonology, and IPA is used everywhere for sound changes. maybe you forgot the /f/ vs. [ɸ] distinction? If you look in e.g. "The World's Major Languages", you see use of IPA whenever possible, since the various systems used in each historical linguistic tradition appear as random line noise to those outside the tradition. Especially for a comparison across a number of languages, we really need to know what actually happened to the sounds; the traditional notation has two problems here: [1] it's opaque except to a small number of people in the Semiticist camp; [2] by using cover terms that cover huge sound changes, it disguises the depth to which changes have taken place. By Using IPA symbols, we can see directly what happened and has led to the differences.
Benwing 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dab, I object to your single-handedly reverting my change. There seems to be a consensus in favor of IPA, and you're the only one objecting. I put my change back. Do not just revert again; get a consensus in favor of this if you really want to. BTW I made a number of fixes to the Ge'ez data in the process of my change (based on the Ge'ez page and [2]), which you also erased. Benwing 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"The most probable Proto-Semitic
Urheimat is the
Arabian peninsula. This hypothesis is based on fact that the
Canaanite,
Aramaic, and
Arab nomadic tribes are recorded to have emerged from there. The same area of origin is likely for the
Akkadians."
Every single one of these statements requires citation.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but the idea that PIE numerals are Semitic borrowings is not at all mainstream. Benwing 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, PS, about a "Syria/Palestine" location being likely. It's simply borne out from the numeral connection above. If we finally accept that these numerals have been borrowed, it logically follows by necessity that these borrowings were exceedingly early (neolithic). However, Semitic is dated to this very time. So in order to get Semitic numerals into a language spoken so far north, it's inevitable that Semitic must have been much further north than the Arabian peninsula at that time. Some try to place IE in Anatolia (Ivanov, Gamrelidze) but this just isn't accepted and eastern Europe is accepted likeliest. So what other conclusion can there be that takes stock of all facts? -- Glengordon01 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Proto-Afro-Asiatic: "Since the 1960s, however, it has been shown that PPNB developed in an unbroken sequence from the Natufian cultures north of Damascus, forging a link between Palestine, Mesopotamia and the Anatolian cultures of Catal Huyuk, and Halicar, with which it shares some similarity. It has been suggested that this northern part of the range was developing as Proto-Semitic." Comments? -- Glengordon01 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
the "Arabian peninsula" statement is the opinion of Kienast (2001). dab (𒁳) 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
User User:Gilgamesh claims that Proto-Semitic fricatives were actually affricates.
This does not agree with e.g. [3]. Also, the change was made only to the bottom half, not the top half, so there is internal inconsistency. If we are to maintain this, we need references proving that this is the accepted view among Semiticists.
BTW the affricates may well be the accepted idea for Proto-Hebrew, but this is not the same as Proto-Semitic.
Benwing 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Gilgamesh also changed the reconstructed Koranic equivalent of ʃ to a lateral, which is almost certainly wrong, so i reverted it. Benwing 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
the ge'ez symbols don't show up at all on my system (standard Windows XP), so i suspect most others don't see them, either. Benwing 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Ge'ez "b" was always b or if it was ever β? I know that some words with b are pronounced β in modern Amharic (e.g. "Abeba" in Addis Abeba; not sure about Tigrinya). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
ok thanks, i got the font from ftp.ethiopic.org and it works fine now. Benwing 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Benwing - re: your edit "someone forgot the uvular fricatives":
The omission of uvulars was not an oversight - an older version of this page included them, but did not provide any citation. I found a reconstruction of the phonology of Proto-Semitic in a general-interest book, which I reproduced above verbatim, and included with minor modifications in the text. This source made no mention of a series of uvular fricatives; nor does the other link included in the references section. As such, if you wish to restore the uvular fricative series, I must insist that you provide a credible citation to substantiate their inclusion. -- April Arcus 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the see-also link text "Semitic abjads" to "History of the alphabet" because abjad is not a generally accepted term in this context, and because most people know what an alphabet is, but have never heard of an abjad. In any case, Semitic abjads redirects to History of the alphabet so there is nothing to be gained by using obscure terminology. The reason I have written this note is because the term "abjad" seems to be cropping up around wikipedia in ways that suggest it is the generally accepted term for an alphabet without vowels, which it is not. Ireneshusband 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"Biblical Hebrew as of the 3rd century BCE apparently still distinguished ġ and ḫ (based on transcriptions in the Septuagint)." -- Should this say that it distinguished ġ and ʻ? Or x and ḫ? (Or χ -- does that phoneme vary between velar and uvular in Modern Hebrew?) 24.159.255.29 03:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason the phonemic inventory of PS is displayed the way it is? I'm not familiar with the orthographic traditions of the field, so I hope I'm not stepping on anybody's toes when I say this, but it seems to me that a more conventional layout such as this might be more effective:
p t k ʔ t' k' b d g θ s ʃ x ħ h θ' s' ð z ɣ ʕ m n w r j l,ɬ,ɬ'
Of course, we'd have to label the rows and columns; but it seems to me, as an outsider to this field, that this layout makes the peculiarities of the phonemic inventory more apparent (for example, the lack of labial fricatives, the myriad alveolar liquids) than the current way it's set up. Moreover, [n] and [r] are not postalveolar fricatives, but the current chart (unintentionally) claims they are.
And on an unrelated note: Does anybody else think that a better title for the section "Sound changes between..." would be "Sound correspondences between..."? Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems that "sound changes" implies a diachronicity that the chart doesn't convey, in that there is very little information of the type, "PS phoneme X became Y in the East Semitic languages, as attested in Akkadian Z." (I'm guessing here that there is a PS branch called East Semitic, and that Akkadian is a member of that branch; I am, more than likely, wrong on at least one count, but I hope you get my point anyway.) Anyway, that's the sort of information I would expect to find in a section entitled "Sound changes," and I think renaming the section "Sound correspondences" resolves that inconsistency. Froboyd 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Per the request to move a dispute here, ( 1), I'm arguing that, at least according to Janet Watson in Phonology and Morphology of Arabic (2002), the emphatic interdental fricative was voiced. She says (just as the article does) that the emphatics were probably glottalized. Remember that glottalized is not the same as ejective and voiced glottalized consonants (as well as vowels) is possible. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this can be solved with what suggested in the previous paragraph. Grouping the PS phonemes to locations and having 3 types in each location: "voiceless", "voiced", "emphatic" (Instead of separating plain/emphatic). This would be better for a few reasons. As for this problem, once there is no claim for the emphatic to have been either voice or voiceless, there will be no argue (remember it's a table of phonemes). As for what suggested in the previous paragraph, it would demonstrate the construction and evolution of the family better, shorter, and easier to understand. Itaj Sherman ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is about the 3rt comment at the end of the "Reflexes of Proto-Semitic sounds in daughter languages" paragraph. As far as I know, ġ [ɣ] + ʻ [ʕ] became one phoneme of the letter ע, and ḫ [x] + ḥ [ħ] became the phoneme of the letter ח. Can anyone explain the comment? When did ġ and ḫ join? Itaj Sherman ( talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Someone really has a vivid imagination. Talk about politicization. Let's get one thing straight. Hypothetical origins of a a group of languages and the ethnic/national origins of peoples are two completely different things. This article has little credibility. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get IPA for all entries in the daughter languages chart. Pairs of traditional academic transcription + IPA, with a note somewhat explaining this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.164 ( talk) 09:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There's currently a statement:
"Indeed, Semitic inscriptions have been found in Ethiopia dating to at least 2000 BC."
I added citation needed but it should probably be removed as (if I'm not mistaken) this is some kind of wacko claim.
I've standardized the transliteration of this phoneme as <ṱ>. Arguments for <ṯ̣> are welcome; my choice is based solely on better legibility. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to prove beyond even the palest of shadows of a doubt that this is the case. Saying that "Canaanites and Aramaeans are recorded to have originated in the Arabian peninsula" is, in a word, false. If there is indeed an Afro-Asiatic language grouping exists, as Wikipedia concurs there is, then Ethiopia is a more plausible candidate for a place of origin for Semitic languages than the Middle East. Over time, disparate peoples then probably adopted Semitic languages and adapted them for their own use for their own conditions. There is ample evidence for this in the Tablets of Nuzi, in which Akkadian language cuneiform records were set down by the originally non-Semitic Hurrians. There is no credible evidence that Canaanites, Arameans, Hebrews,etc. ever migrated from the Arabian peninsula to the Levant. Wikipedia should desist from its politicizing, and get down to reporting actual scholarship. --JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.29.208 ( talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely,I can't believe this amount of falsehood still goes on.A complete denial of deepest origins. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.178.55.79 (
talk)
12:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
This article looks so poor compared to articles about Proto-Indo-European. Can somebody add at least some information about Proto-Semitic grammar?
To people who question the Arabian origin of Semites, I advice you to do a little research about Arabic, compare it to Hebrew and Aramaic, and then think again. Remeber that both Hebrews and Arameans started out as nomads, and remeber that the word Hebrews itself probably comes from "nomads."
For anyone truely serious about the subject, I must point out that serious linguists in the area have no qualms about an Ethiopia Urheimat. The placement of the Proto-Semitic Urheimat in the Middle East is clearly a fantasy long-held by Semiticist and a carry-over from days when racism played no small role in the social sciences. I would explain but for discretion and the distaste for sensationalism.
See that the greatest diversity, today and in the past, of Semitic languages lies in Ethiopia and nowhere else. This really does seal the case if you have even half-way decent training in historical linguistics.
Believe as you wish, but linguists are indeed the scientists of language, if the Semiticists are scientists of whatever they please. There are contributions that have and will be made by such specialists in Semitic studies, but let it suffice to say that a Middle Eastern Urheimat is more outdated than the expoundings of political scientists on anthropology and archaeology. Please, seriously read outside your disciple.
Epigraphist ( talk) 05:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely I agree one hundred percent,and while you're at it get your dna checked and you'll find the relation isn't only linguistic,this is commonly known now,you are all
Haplogroup E3b.I look like a fair skinned italian but I have two sub saharan grandmothers.When I see an eritrean I see a darker more refined arab,a darker and usually more refined italian,I see this eritrean woman and I see and hear something of a very ancient semite
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xgMn7x73JvE.Stop throwing our your ancient history because of current politics
58.178.55.79 (
talk)
12:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes please do,common sense runs over the head of even the deepest intellectual enquiry and is in drought among you.Better yet employ the unfailing "mirror test" which laughs in the face of linguistics. 58.178.55.79 ( talk) 03:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Jews and Syriacs can't believe that they come even from Arabia, and you want them to believe that they come from Ethiopia? You're pushing too much.
People started out in Kenya, and Ethiopia is closer to Kenya than Arabia. Also, South Semitic languages look indeed more dynamic than the others. Arabic is a well preserved language, but it is not dynamic, actually if you know Arabic enough you will find it to be too unproductive for what a language pot should have looked like. The simple and basic elements of the Proto-Semitic language seem to have gone out of productivity in Arabic at earlier times than in Ethiopic languages. HD86 ( talk) 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the scientific evidence, this new theory is indeed the worst ever. It says that Proto-Semites were hords of gypsies who ran into each other and produced a mongrel nomadic nation. HD86 ( talk) 21:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
The article states that Egyptian is the closest of the Afroasiatic languages to Semitic, but then proposes that Proto-Semitic entered the Middle East paradoxically from the Horn of Africa!!! This seems to be a very paradoxical arrangement, as Afro-Asiatic languages probably only appeared in the horn of Africa after an emigration of Cushitic peoples from the Sudan, some 3,000 years BCE!!
Given the fact that Egyptian is the closest of the Afro-Asiatic languages to Semitic, isn't it more likely that ProtoSemitic speakers travelled across from Egypt to Sinai, possibly at the end of PPNB stage, with the Harifian hunter gatherers, to form what Jaris Yurins calls the Circum Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex in the period from 6,000-5,600 BCE? It was these peoples who, as a part of the Arabian bifacial complex, introduced the neolithic into Southern Arabia.
John D. Croft 20:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is raised: If there was a language called Proto-Semitic, then was there a specific group of Semites that spoke that language known as Proto-Semites or the Proto-Semitic people?
we cannot just say "generally reconstructed" here. There is no consensus on the exact PS sound system. You need to say who reconstructs this particular system. Afaik, the main division is between people basing PS on Akkadian vs. on Arabic. The present version seems to just "fill up" the system with lots of phonemes, so that all descended systems can be comfortably explained. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
, |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, |origdate=
, and |coauthors=
(
help)Point of articulation | Manner of articulation | Degree of aperture | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Voiceless | Voiced | Emphatic | ||
Bilabial | p | b | Plosive | |
m | Nasal | |||
Interdental | t̠ | d̠ | t̠̣ | Fricative |
d̠̣ | Lateralized | |||
Dental | t | d | ṭ | Plosive |
s | z | ṣ | Fricative | |
l | Lateral | |||
ś | Lateralized | |||
r | Vibrant | |||
n | Nasal | |||
Prepalatal | š | Fricative | ||
Dorsopalatal | k | g | q | Plosive |
Velar | ḫ | ġ | Fricative | |
Pharyngeal | ḥ | ‘ | Fricative | |
Laryngeal | ’ | Plosive | ||
h | Fricative |
Those sources (other than Steiner and Faber) are pretty antiquated, another reason Saenz-Badillos is a poor source for Proto-Semitic.
Why no mention of South Arabian alphabet?-- JWB 21:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
the Canaanite table entries seem to just echo the Proto-Semitic ones. I suppose they should be changed to transliterations of the Phoenician letters in the same column? dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I found this article extremely hard to follow, mostly because there is no use of IPA. I know these symbols are widely used to represent afro-asiatic languages, but to a person like me whose previous knowledge of language pronunciation is in IPA, this is really hard to follow.-- ikiroid | ( talk) 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Either the reconstructed phonemes are just abstract labels for correspondences among the various attested languages or they are intended to have some phonetic value. If they're just abstract labels, it doesn't matter what symbols are used; they could be P1, P2, ... (for "phoneme-1" etc.), or slightly more mnemonic symbols, but it makes no difference in principle. I doubt that anyone intends that. The alternative is that they express some idea as to what they sounded like, no matter how tentative, rough, or approximate, just as descriptive terms like "interdental fricative" do. In that case, there is simply no excuse for using any symbols other than IPA. It's much easier for a Semitist to guess what is meant by IPA symbols, even if they are not what s/he is accustomed to using, than for someone who is new to Semitic linguistics to understand the ideas being expressed while at the same time also trying to keep track of a whole host of idiosyncratic symbols. (I'm a Semitic linguist myself.) Maybe in a book for Semitic specialists the traditional symbols are fine (though as far as I'm concerned they ought to be abandoned) but certainly not in a work for the general public.
what is the basis of your change ( [1](, Yhever? Any reference? Or how will we tell if this was an improvement? dab (ᛏ) 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there seems to be a major problem here. Certain recent edits on the subject of the sound inventory are making me crack ;)
You could say that all Proto-Semitic sounds are theoretical and tentative so it seems meaningless to say that some are. Actually, I know there could be a big long paragraph on the controversies of some Proto-Semitic sounds, so maybe that would be better than this arcane asterisking that nobody outside of our tiny Proto-Semitic world understands. Wouldn't that be swell? -- Glengordon01 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In the sound table, the link underlines make it difficult to distinguish the alveolar stops from the interdental fricatives, since the latter are usually indicated with a macron below. Is there anything we can do about this? -- April Arcus 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the links should be taken out because they are out of context. This table is showing us the sounds of Proto-Semitic, but the links are taking us to letters common in the Semitic writing systems. We shouldn't be mixing up language with writing. Proto-Semitic was spoken long before the alphabet came into existence! Perhaps to the ire of others, I think I'm going to take them out and if someone has a good reason to revert, let us know. -- Glengordon01 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
i just made a bunch of updates to this page, including adding IPA symbols where the traditional semitic ones are non-IPA, and adding phonology for modern hebrew and modern south arabian. for the latter two, i unavoidably had to use IPA, and now the mixture of IPA and traditional semitic looks really stupid. let's please just use IPA everywhere, with the traditional semitic representation in parens in the proto-semitic column, rather than the other way around.
Benwing 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This sounds sensible. Keeping IPA the default throughout Wikipedia respects modern linguistic standards afterall! I think if the masses are too stupid to learn IPA, a pox on their houses. Science shouldn't be dumbed-down for the sake of mental troglodytes, hehe :) -- Glengordon01 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK with me. Benwing 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I rewrote the whole table to use IPA, with Semiticist symbols in parens. Benwing 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
sound changes fall squarely within phonology, and IPA is used everywhere for sound changes. maybe you forgot the /f/ vs. [ɸ] distinction? If you look in e.g. "The World's Major Languages", you see use of IPA whenever possible, since the various systems used in each historical linguistic tradition appear as random line noise to those outside the tradition. Especially for a comparison across a number of languages, we really need to know what actually happened to the sounds; the traditional notation has two problems here: [1] it's opaque except to a small number of people in the Semiticist camp; [2] by using cover terms that cover huge sound changes, it disguises the depth to which changes have taken place. By Using IPA symbols, we can see directly what happened and has led to the differences.
Benwing 08:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dab, I object to your single-handedly reverting my change. There seems to be a consensus in favor of IPA, and you're the only one objecting. I put my change back. Do not just revert again; get a consensus in favor of this if you really want to. BTW I made a number of fixes to the Ge'ez data in the process of my change (based on the Ge'ez page and [2]), which you also erased. Benwing 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"The most probable Proto-Semitic
Urheimat is the
Arabian peninsula. This hypothesis is based on fact that the
Canaanite,
Aramaic, and
Arab nomadic tribes are recorded to have emerged from there. The same area of origin is likely for the
Akkadians."
Every single one of these statements requires citation.
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but the idea that PIE numerals are Semitic borrowings is not at all mainstream. Benwing 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, PS, about a "Syria/Palestine" location being likely. It's simply borne out from the numeral connection above. If we finally accept that these numerals have been borrowed, it logically follows by necessity that these borrowings were exceedingly early (neolithic). However, Semitic is dated to this very time. So in order to get Semitic numerals into a language spoken so far north, it's inevitable that Semitic must have been much further north than the Arabian peninsula at that time. Some try to place IE in Anatolia (Ivanov, Gamrelidze) but this just isn't accepted and eastern Europe is accepted likeliest. So what other conclusion can there be that takes stock of all facts? -- Glengordon01 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Proto-Afro-Asiatic: "Since the 1960s, however, it has been shown that PPNB developed in an unbroken sequence from the Natufian cultures north of Damascus, forging a link between Palestine, Mesopotamia and the Anatolian cultures of Catal Huyuk, and Halicar, with which it shares some similarity. It has been suggested that this northern part of the range was developing as Proto-Semitic." Comments? -- Glengordon01 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
the "Arabian peninsula" statement is the opinion of Kienast (2001). dab (𒁳) 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
User User:Gilgamesh claims that Proto-Semitic fricatives were actually affricates.
This does not agree with e.g. [3]. Also, the change was made only to the bottom half, not the top half, so there is internal inconsistency. If we are to maintain this, we need references proving that this is the accepted view among Semiticists.
BTW the affricates may well be the accepted idea for Proto-Hebrew, but this is not the same as Proto-Semitic.
Benwing 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Gilgamesh also changed the reconstructed Koranic equivalent of ʃ to a lateral, which is almost certainly wrong, so i reverted it. Benwing 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
the ge'ez symbols don't show up at all on my system (standard Windows XP), so i suspect most others don't see them, either. Benwing 07:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Ge'ez "b" was always b or if it was ever β? I know that some words with b are pronounced β in modern Amharic (e.g. "Abeba" in Addis Abeba; not sure about Tigrinya). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
ok thanks, i got the font from ftp.ethiopic.org and it works fine now. Benwing 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Benwing - re: your edit "someone forgot the uvular fricatives":
The omission of uvulars was not an oversight - an older version of this page included them, but did not provide any citation. I found a reconstruction of the phonology of Proto-Semitic in a general-interest book, which I reproduced above verbatim, and included with minor modifications in the text. This source made no mention of a series of uvular fricatives; nor does the other link included in the references section. As such, if you wish to restore the uvular fricative series, I must insist that you provide a credible citation to substantiate their inclusion. -- April Arcus 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the see-also link text "Semitic abjads" to "History of the alphabet" because abjad is not a generally accepted term in this context, and because most people know what an alphabet is, but have never heard of an abjad. In any case, Semitic abjads redirects to History of the alphabet so there is nothing to be gained by using obscure terminology. The reason I have written this note is because the term "abjad" seems to be cropping up around wikipedia in ways that suggest it is the generally accepted term for an alphabet without vowels, which it is not. Ireneshusband 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"Biblical Hebrew as of the 3rd century BCE apparently still distinguished ġ and ḫ (based on transcriptions in the Septuagint)." -- Should this say that it distinguished ġ and ʻ? Or x and ḫ? (Or χ -- does that phoneme vary between velar and uvular in Modern Hebrew?) 24.159.255.29 03:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason the phonemic inventory of PS is displayed the way it is? I'm not familiar with the orthographic traditions of the field, so I hope I'm not stepping on anybody's toes when I say this, but it seems to me that a more conventional layout such as this might be more effective:
p t k ʔ t' k' b d g θ s ʃ x ħ h θ' s' ð z ɣ ʕ m n w r j l,ɬ,ɬ'
Of course, we'd have to label the rows and columns; but it seems to me, as an outsider to this field, that this layout makes the peculiarities of the phonemic inventory more apparent (for example, the lack of labial fricatives, the myriad alveolar liquids) than the current way it's set up. Moreover, [n] and [r] are not postalveolar fricatives, but the current chart (unintentionally) claims they are.
And on an unrelated note: Does anybody else think that a better title for the section "Sound changes between..." would be "Sound correspondences between..."? Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems that "sound changes" implies a diachronicity that the chart doesn't convey, in that there is very little information of the type, "PS phoneme X became Y in the East Semitic languages, as attested in Akkadian Z." (I'm guessing here that there is a PS branch called East Semitic, and that Akkadian is a member of that branch; I am, more than likely, wrong on at least one count, but I hope you get my point anyway.) Anyway, that's the sort of information I would expect to find in a section entitled "Sound changes," and I think renaming the section "Sound correspondences" resolves that inconsistency. Froboyd 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Per the request to move a dispute here, ( 1), I'm arguing that, at least according to Janet Watson in Phonology and Morphology of Arabic (2002), the emphatic interdental fricative was voiced. She says (just as the article does) that the emphatics were probably glottalized. Remember that glottalized is not the same as ejective and voiced glottalized consonants (as well as vowels) is possible. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this can be solved with what suggested in the previous paragraph. Grouping the PS phonemes to locations and having 3 types in each location: "voiceless", "voiced", "emphatic" (Instead of separating plain/emphatic). This would be better for a few reasons. As for this problem, once there is no claim for the emphatic to have been either voice or voiceless, there will be no argue (remember it's a table of phonemes). As for what suggested in the previous paragraph, it would demonstrate the construction and evolution of the family better, shorter, and easier to understand. Itaj Sherman ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is about the 3rt comment at the end of the "Reflexes of Proto-Semitic sounds in daughter languages" paragraph. As far as I know, ġ [ɣ] + ʻ [ʕ] became one phoneme of the letter ע, and ḫ [x] + ḥ [ħ] became the phoneme of the letter ח. Can anyone explain the comment? When did ġ and ḫ join? Itaj Sherman ( talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Someone really has a vivid imagination. Talk about politicization. Let's get one thing straight. Hypothetical origins of a a group of languages and the ethnic/national origins of peoples are two completely different things. This article has little credibility. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get IPA for all entries in the daughter languages chart. Pairs of traditional academic transcription + IPA, with a note somewhat explaining this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.164 ( talk) 09:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There's currently a statement:
"Indeed, Semitic inscriptions have been found in Ethiopia dating to at least 2000 BC."
I added citation needed but it should probably be removed as (if I'm not mistaken) this is some kind of wacko claim.
I've standardized the transliteration of this phoneme as <ṱ>. Arguments for <ṯ̣> are welcome; my choice is based solely on better legibility. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to prove beyond even the palest of shadows of a doubt that this is the case. Saying that "Canaanites and Aramaeans are recorded to have originated in the Arabian peninsula" is, in a word, false. If there is indeed an Afro-Asiatic language grouping exists, as Wikipedia concurs there is, then Ethiopia is a more plausible candidate for a place of origin for Semitic languages than the Middle East. Over time, disparate peoples then probably adopted Semitic languages and adapted them for their own use for their own conditions. There is ample evidence for this in the Tablets of Nuzi, in which Akkadian language cuneiform records were set down by the originally non-Semitic Hurrians. There is no credible evidence that Canaanites, Arameans, Hebrews,etc. ever migrated from the Arabian peninsula to the Levant. Wikipedia should desist from its politicizing, and get down to reporting actual scholarship. --JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.29.208 ( talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely,I can't believe this amount of falsehood still goes on.A complete denial of deepest origins. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.178.55.79 (
talk)
12:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
This article looks so poor compared to articles about Proto-Indo-European. Can somebody add at least some information about Proto-Semitic grammar?
To people who question the Arabian origin of Semites, I advice you to do a little research about Arabic, compare it to Hebrew and Aramaic, and then think again. Remeber that both Hebrews and Arameans started out as nomads, and remeber that the word Hebrews itself probably comes from "nomads."
For anyone truely serious about the subject, I must point out that serious linguists in the area have no qualms about an Ethiopia Urheimat. The placement of the Proto-Semitic Urheimat in the Middle East is clearly a fantasy long-held by Semiticist and a carry-over from days when racism played no small role in the social sciences. I would explain but for discretion and the distaste for sensationalism.
See that the greatest diversity, today and in the past, of Semitic languages lies in Ethiopia and nowhere else. This really does seal the case if you have even half-way decent training in historical linguistics.
Believe as you wish, but linguists are indeed the scientists of language, if the Semiticists are scientists of whatever they please. There are contributions that have and will be made by such specialists in Semitic studies, but let it suffice to say that a Middle Eastern Urheimat is more outdated than the expoundings of political scientists on anthropology and archaeology. Please, seriously read outside your disciple.
Epigraphist ( talk) 05:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely I agree one hundred percent,and while you're at it get your dna checked and you'll find the relation isn't only linguistic,this is commonly known now,you are all
Haplogroup E3b.I look like a fair skinned italian but I have two sub saharan grandmothers.When I see an eritrean I see a darker more refined arab,a darker and usually more refined italian,I see this eritrean woman and I see and hear something of a very ancient semite
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xgMn7x73JvE.Stop throwing our your ancient history because of current politics
58.178.55.79 (
talk)
12:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes please do,common sense runs over the head of even the deepest intellectual enquiry and is in drought among you.Better yet employ the unfailing "mirror test" which laughs in the face of linguistics. 58.178.55.79 ( talk) 03:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Jews and Syriacs can't believe that they come even from Arabia, and you want them to believe that they come from Ethiopia? You're pushing too much.
People started out in Kenya, and Ethiopia is closer to Kenya than Arabia. Also, South Semitic languages look indeed more dynamic than the others. Arabic is a well preserved language, but it is not dynamic, actually if you know Arabic enough you will find it to be too unproductive for what a language pot should have looked like. The simple and basic elements of the Proto-Semitic language seem to have gone out of productivity in Arabic at earlier times than in Ethiopic languages. HD86 ( talk) 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the scientific evidence, this new theory is indeed the worst ever. It says that Proto-Semites were hords of gypsies who ran into each other and produced a mongrel nomadic nation. HD86 ( talk) 21:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)