Talk:Afroasiatic languages

Numerals

Proto-Afroasiatic language now has a fairly detailed section on Numerals (which is basically just proposed cognates given the state of PAA reconstruction). My question is: is the section here with the numerals comparison still worth keeping? Is it giving our readers useful information? (I'm not arguing in favor of removing it necessarily, I'd just like to make sure that there isn't too much overlap/mismatched content between the articles).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have similar questions about the current sections on derivational affixes. It seems to me that nisba, only found in two branches, would be better handled at Proto-Afroasiatic. The mV- prefix may deserve its own section, as may the verbal prefixes. Alternatively, we could simply have a "derivation" that could then also include other commonalities between the languages (nisba is found in two branches, but adjective-forming suffixes are found in more, for instance). I suppose some of the tables would have to go then due to space.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Afroasiatic homeland

The most recent sources from 2018 to 2023 clearly state that the majority of scholars place the origin in NORTHEAST Africa, not simply "Africa" in general. We should reflect what the studies actually say. This is what is stated in both proto-Afroasiatic and Afroasiatic homeland articles. Also, it is made clear that although the languages likely diversified from proto-Afroasiatic in northeast Africa, their ultimate origin prior to this is in the Levant in the Paleolithic, as per ALL of the genetic studies. The people who spoke proto-Afroasiatic are from the Paleolithic to early Neolithic Levant according to the sources, and that needs to be stated here. 50.100.222.203 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC) "First, present-day ancestry in North Africans is characterized by an autochthonous Maghrebi component related to a Paleolithic back migration to Africa from Eurasia. ... This result suggests that Iberomaurusian populations in North Africa were related to Paleolithic people in the Levant..."

Please see the previous section "Contradictions" on the pre-AA migration of potentially proto-AA speakers. This is an article that should not go back any further than the ACTUAL origin of AA languages, not the pre-history of a potential Proto-Proto-Afroasiatic. As for the rest, you are adding material far beyond what you are suggesting here, and if you have a specific suggestion for a change (i.e. African vs. Northeast African - why does this matter to you?), you need to document it here on the talk page with sources rather than repeatedly reinstating your enormous amount of edits in an WP:EDIT WAR.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The paleogenetic studies, amongst others, discuss the origins of the people who spoke "pre-proto-Afroasiatic". Why shouldn't the origins of proto-Afroasiatic not go back as far as is discussed in the relevant literature? It is important to include these studies, because some of the studies presented in your current format make conclusions at odds with the findings of genetic data, which clearly demonstrate a complete correlation between Afroasiatic languages and the spread of pastoralism and farming from West Asia into Africa. The current format wrongly discusses the Levantine origin hypothesis as a "significant minority". Several citations do show that the majority place some "origin" of proto-Afroasiatic in northeast Africa, but it obfuscates that many of these scholars also agree that the ultimate origin beyond this is likely in the Levant, and that the origins of these people themselves has been conclusively shown to be completely in West Asia in the Paleolithic, and the area between Egypt and the Levant with the greatest certainty (Natufian culture).

A similar comparison to this is how most scholars place the origin of proto-Indo-European in the Pontic Caspian steppe of Europe, but also acknowledge that the ultimate origin is likely in the Caucasus or northwestern Iran as per genetic studies and related hypotheses of the even earlier origins of pre-proto-Indo-European.

Finally, the current format of the article places too much of an emphasis on one recent work by Ehret, 2023, which ignores the overwhelming genetic data, as well as linguistic and archaeological data, which conclusively places the origins of the indigenous people of North Africa (including northeast Africa) in West Asia during the Paleolithic and early Neolithic. It is widely accepted by scholars that 1) the pre-agriculture population of North Africa was itself derived from West Asia in the Paleolithic, and 2) that the later spread of farming and pastoralism into North Africa from West Asia in the early Neolithic itself was accompanied by later migration and genetic changes. The paleogenetic studies at the proto-Afroasiatic and Afroasiatic homeland articles discuss this. 50.100.222.203 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is about Afroasiatic languages, not the potential prehistory of their speakers before they spoke Afroasiatic languages. Problems with associating those genetic markers with a clear Asian origin have been noted elsewhere on the talk page anyway. As a friend of mine noted, if we go back far enough everyone’s from Africa anyway - it’s absurd to assert that AS speakers came “originally” from somewhere else when even the people arguing for a previous migration from Asia don’t argue that those people spoke AA languages when they migrated. And besides, most of what you, a likely sock, are writing here is not at all what the scholarship says.—Ermenrich (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In the light of this continuation of edit warring, especially by the IP using the sources I included previously to the article Afroasiatic homeland. I voice my disagreement with the IP. The case has been discussed and was closed, the reappearance of this dispute is bad faith. I advice the IP to stop it. Concenus is three users against you IP. Just stop it! The sources which mentioned North Africa or Northeast Africa were referenced inline to Ehret and Keita. It was discussed and explained why not to use Northeast Africa. Do us a favour and stop. This dispute was already dealt with.Krause96 (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Campbell and Hodge

@Daniel Power of God:. I do not believe that the source given for Campbell's views is a good one. It is a summary of his thoughts and not the original source, for one thing. It is primarily discussing Nilo-Saharan for another. And thirdly, Campbell, while a highly respectable historical linguist, is not a specialist in Afroasiatic linguists. I believe his views on Afroasiatic have been discussed elsewhere on this page or at Proto-Afroasiatic possibly and that in most publications he appears to accept the family.

As for Hodge, his book was published in 1990. Quite a bit has happened since then. Furthermore, I do not believe that Hodge was cited fairly, as the intention appeared to be to make the existence of Afrosasiatic appear questionable, (and possibly to suggest that scholars are afraid to say this?). What Hodge actually says is: For position [that Afroasiatic cannot be reconstructed] we have only occasional statements, often unpublished. Presumably those holding this view consider the time depth too great for sufficient comparable material to have survived. The way this was framed in the edit suggested instead that those who believed that Afroasiatic cannot be reconstructed questioned the validity of the family, like Campbell is implied to have done via indirect citation. We already have more recent statements here and at Proto-Afroasiatic that show that many scholars are skeptical of Afroasiatic reconstructions due to time depth.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Campell's views are not quite adequately represented in Schadeberg's chapter; while C. lists several families and macro-families that he considers unproven, he does not necessarily put them on par. A better impression of Campbell's views can be taken from Campbell & Poser (2008), Language Classification: History and Method. Their skepticism (NB not entire rejection) is mentioned in Güldemann (2018) and thus might also be woven in here with a short mention (note that even the "splitter" Güldemann considers Campbell & Poser's skepticism as exaggerated). –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Campbell and Poser conclude their discussion of Afroasiatic in the book that Austronesier mentions above by saying Afroasiatic probably is a valid genetic grouping, at least large parts of what is postulated to belong in it, even though we are reticent to accept traits that may have other explanations and thus are not fully persuasive of that relationship. While he's clearly more skeptical than most Afroasianists, he does not reject the group.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wilson-Wright's essay

I just came across this review of Ancient Egyptian and Afro-Asiatic: Rethinking the Origins which is for the most part a response to Wilson-Wright's denial of AA in that volume: [1] . Basically, it refutes all of Wilson-Wright's argumentation. As such, I feel that we've made the right decision not giving more space to her ideas (see the earlier discussion of the issue in the archives).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Another negative assessement of Wilson-Wright's chapter is by Takács (2023). Note that Takács presents her study in the wider context of what he calls the "rather introverted and fossilized special branch of comparative studies that has been arbitrarily focusing on a forced comparison of just Semitic and Egyptian" that completely ignores the full breadth of AA studies. (Rememeber also how her paper was heavily (and erroneously) promoted a few years ago as a critique of the AA macro-family in toto by an editor who was totally tunnel-visioned on the AA affiliation of the Egyptian branch only). –Austronesier (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Takacs is quite polemic in all of his writings. You should check out his Egyptian Etymological dictionary some time - for various proposed etymologies he only states things like "Ridiculous". He also routinely attacks Ehret. Nevertheless, I think we can say that Wilson-Wright's critique has landed with a thud rather than an explosion (and even I, non-specialist though I am, found the essay pretty questionable in parts of its argumentation). That being the case, it's best kept off the article. AA studies definitely has some problems, but I think we've already included comment on most of them in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)