"Afrikan=Black Lives Matter and Decolonizing the Academy" 
-
Neter Neb posted an update in the group
4 years agoComparative Negro – Egyptian Linguistics 4 years ago · Brother Sandro, please review this data. Just to show a small example of the historical-comparative method demonstrating sound regularity within the Pharaonic branch of Negro-Egyptian Obenga 2000, we find numerous homonyms of km-Black with different yet related meanings. All of these adjectival homonymic expressions of km-Black (adjective), meaning = Black land (soil), Black person(people), Verb-Be Black, etc….. corresponds in phonetic regularity throughout the entire Pharaonic Egyptian branch in C1 = k and C2 = m. The historical evolution deriving from Old Egyptian, to Late Egyptian (Demotic) to its historical evolution in the Coptic dialects can be observed clearly. Read my historical linguistic inference post attached using accurate historical methodology to derive my etymology. My etymology is based simply by observing already established cognates.
31 Comments-
Thanks Bro Neter Neb, I’ll take the time to read it closely and try to complement it with data from other languages if possible-
You welcome, add the data, we don’t need folk etymology, the term is already in Coptic and Coptic Text, In Old Egyptian kmtjw- Black ones according to Grammar rules, older Egyptian would be Sabi km, Sabi the Black man,
-
Primary adjective – Sabi km-
-
The source is TLA, Egyptians was describing themselves as “Black”
-
-
-
-
88,678
Abibisika (Black Gold) Points
I use the same coptic text. There are two lines that show the term in there.-
Correct, it shows it twice in the same exact context. We should not engage in folk etymology when the facts are already as they are.
-
-
Wonderful lessons. Thank you, NeTer Neb -
Neter Neb,
I am wondering if the languages you are working on outside of Egyptian also have a cognate word for Egyptian rmT. It would be a good way to establish sound laws for Egyptian m as C2. I know this is attested in many bantu languages with a form like /lume/ or sim. thanks to Th. Obenga’s work.Also, another case would be the name of the god Amun , which I know corresponds to Amana-, Ama, Amba- or Amma in some Dogon lects. What do you think?
-
Our work meaning myself and Dr. Nasir Satti’s linguistic data is published to a scientific publication being vetted, I cannot share it here until the peer review process is over, see photo below. I already gave you a small example of C1 -K and C2-M which is exact sound correspondences, I also reconstructed Medew Neter and the Demotic based on these sound laws. We compared Nubian Dongolawi, SW Dinka, Dogon Tommo So, Coptic, and Medew Neter with the basic lexis (pronouns, body parts, numerals, and basic lexis). We have established over 13 sound laws that are built from systematic regularity. Then we reconstructed. Yes, rmT which is simply a Gardiner transliteration is reconstructed in our work based on sound laws in both consonant positions C1 – r and C2- m in all the Black African languages we compared, most cases in African languages has DROPPED C3 – [dʒ] in the sound change of elision. It is cognate in Nubian Dongolawi, SW Dinka, Dogon Tommo So, and Coptic. I cannot share it here, because we are waiting for peer review. The examples I gave already follow Grimm’s Law in both consonants positions meaning C1 -k and C2- m.
-
88,678
Abibisika (Black Gold) Points
If we don’t get the 3rd review in by the end of this month, we’ll move forward with the ones we have.
-
Oh wow, amazing, much respect to all you do….. I let everyone know of your work, but I cannot wait for your next paper………….
-
I cannot wait to see your scientific inferences, I will be the first to share
-
88,678
Abibisika (Black Gold) Points
Most likely the next paper will be body part expressions compared across mdw nTr, Akan, Yorùbá and Kiswahili. It goes into the worldview of fundamental interrelation vs that of fundamental alienation. It should be a useful contribution to our collective work.
-
Wow, yes, I’m interested in that very much. I cannot wait for it professor, really, I shared your other paper in Dr. Rkhty’s student group and they were amazed, that will be the first I ever observed dealing in that type of basic lexis (body parts) across Akan, Yoruba, and Kiswahili. I cannot wait. I will need to source your paper.
-
In your other paper I used as a foundational guide to understanding the method of comparative linguistics, I sourced and referenced it. Your contribution is what’s needed to further the study. Matter of fact, I will share your paper/ thesis in this group because I think it is important.
-
88,678
Abibisika (Black Gold) Points
Indeed, understanding and identifying regular sound changes across natural classes of sound is the correct method.
-
-
-
-
-
Interesting. My take is that Egyptian is /ʧ/ rather than /ʤ/ and that rmT’s-ʧ is the result of a secondary derivation from a root /rm/ rather than a secondary loss of /ʧ/ though.
-
You are correct of MdC C3- T = ʧ (apologies for my error), but [ʧ] is mostly lost in Black African languages, for example below by simply observing the related Coptic dialects. Obenga’s work also shows that the [ʧ ] is dropped in a sound change process of elision in Bantu languages as -lomi- man.
rmT is an Old Egyptian term (See: Pyramid Text of Unis and other Old Kingdom rock inscriptions before the pyramid text). [ʧ ] is also systematically dropped in Nubian Dongolawi, Coptic, Bantu (so-called Bantu), Dogon Tommo So, and SW Dinka.Coptic Sahidic -…….. ro:mi… man, human being [Crums Coptic Dictionary pg. 294]
Nubian Dongolawi…ádem… man, human being
Dogon Tommo So…ⁿdɛ̌m…. people
SW Dinka……………….rɛm…..generationNote: In so-called Bantu languages it is -lomi- man, again the [ʧ] is dropped in a process of elision. Simply, wait for my scientific paper so we can get into more details, I cannot share much until accepted. Thanks for commenting. The photo is Crum’s Coptic Dictionary pg. 294.
-
-
BTW do you agree with Obenga’s internal classification of Négro-égyptien?
I personally broadly agree with it, but I disagree with his claim that /ʧ/ (<*-k?) was lost in languages other than Egyptian. In order to prove so, one would need to show instances of retention of /ʧ/ in language families other than Egypto-Coptic to reconstruct it for Proto Négro-Egyptien which he hasn’t done.My original research shows that /ʧ/ <(*k) is only found in a couple of Chadic languages, which could suggest a close relationship, or an special areal connection between AE and Chadic, but not necessarily its reconstruction for earlier stages of other Négro-Egyptien languages.
-
When it comes to the Medew NeTer/MdC term -rmT- man, people, The C3 voiceless palatal-alveolar sibilant affricate [tʃ] consonant in Medew Neter (Ancient Egyptian) has decayed in Dogon Tommo So with a sound change process of elision completely as in Coptic dialects. In Nandi, the C3 voiceless palatal-alveolar sibilant affricate [tʃ] consonant went through elision and dropped the [ʃ] leaving the [t]. This is only one term, but that’s why I say mostly and not entirely. I would have to see his entire analysis before I can comment on what I can agree or disagree with, but as observed below C3-[tʃ] is dropped in a sound change of elision, even in Nandi elision occurred.
*Note: Just a sample, MdC must be reconstructed
Medew NeTer (Old Egyptian)……..rmT
Medew NeTer (Middle Egyptian)..rmT
Medew NeTer (Late Egyptian)…….rmT
Medew NeTer (Demotic)……………rmTThe elision of the C3 voiceless palatal-alveolar sibilant affricate [tʃ] in the Coptic, Dinka, and Dogon languages of Negro Egyptian
Coptic Sahidic -…….. ro:mi… man, human being [Crums Coptic Dictionary pg. 294]
Dogon Tommo So…ⁿdɛ̌m…. people
Dogon Yorno So…….nàm……people
Dogon Jamsey……….nám……people
Dogon Perga Tegu..íné-m….people
Dogon Togo-Kan….màrⁿá…..people (metathesis)
SW Dinka……………….rɛm…..generation
Nuer……………………..ram…..person
Nandi……………………renet…man-
Thank you for providing the Nandi evidence. Since -Vt is a grammatical morpheme (singular) regularly found in Nandi vs -Vk (plural), did you find other cases of -ʧ in Egyptian as a potentially ‘fossilized’ similar grammatical morpheme?
-
No, but – rmT- is also singular according to grammar in Medew NeTer, it is a collective operation (singular), in which the term is singular but yet its meaning is plural. Similar to other feminine singular collectives. I know [ʧ] can also interchange with [t] in Medew Neter as well. If Im not mistaken, I believe I have observed -rmT and rmt in Medew NeTer.
-
So in Medew NeTer (Old Egyptian), rmT, can be singular for “man” and observed as a plural, also I observed it to be a collective due to the plural being abstract observed in later Medew NeTer. In Medew NeTer it can also be – rmt or rmT.
-
To be more precise, in Medew NeTer (Old Egyptian) rmT- 1) can be a masculine collective singular noun meaning ‘people’ or even as a feminine singular collective rmTt = people 2) rmT also can be singular to mean ‘man’, Hoch demonstrates this in his grammar book ( Hoch 1997: 60)
-
Brother Neter Neb:
I am not sold on your demonstration about Egyptian -T being an exponent of the collective in rmT for the following reasons:
1)There is indeed an alternation between and from the end of the OK onwards, but it is hardly frequent at this point and to the best of my knowledge, is not found in rmT, at least before Late Egyptian
2) -T is not found as a marker of the collective in Early Egyptian elsewhere either, -t is
3) There is no evidence of a word *rm meaning ‘man’ in Early Egyptian to which -T would add a collective value
4) rmT without plural marking sometimes can mean both ‘man’ and ‘men’, but the reading ‘man’ is much more common than that of ‘men’; ‘men’ is most often written with plural markings in Early Egyptian
5) rmTt is a collective meaning ‘men, mankind’ with -t marking the collective which pretty much excludes -T as a marker of the collective.-
You are inaccurate for a number of reasons, also I don’t need to sell you anything, I accept the facts as they are. In (d) I have posted the actual inscription and direct duplication of the actual Old Egyptian inscription of Unis by James P . Allen. Here we find rmT to mean “people” which is actually a masculine collective due to the plural being in the abstract. The plural in this old Egyptian word -rmT- is a substitute for the plural strokes indicating that this term is actually a collective operation due to the word being singular, this is Egyptian grammar 101. Selling for me is useless because the facts are as they are.
You stated:
“2) -T is not found as a marker of the collective in Early Egyptian elsewhere either, -t is ”Your statement here is in error. In Old Egyptian, we can find numerous examples of – rmT- with [T] observed as a masculine collective singular noun or a masculine noun/substantive depending on how it is used in context. Here are examples from earlier Egyptian I also attached an Old Egyptian inscription for you to translate and transliterate, source: TLA
Old Egyptian – rmT- as a masculine collective noun to mean “people” or even “man or person”
(a) Mastaba of Rawer, sacrificial chamber, partition (line [4]
wpi = (j) rmT sn (j) m ( j) -r’-Hm (w) -kA
TLA: I separated their people, the head of the priests of the dead(b) Unas cemetery, mastaba of Nianch-Khnum and Khnum-hotep
Xr [b r (m) T b] bAk, t
TLA: Submit (you) to the man, dairy cow!(c) Notes (Old Kingdom), Abusir, Plate 73, pCairo 602
n a rmT nb Hmw, w nb r = f
TLA: There is no action of any man or any craft against him(d) Unas-Pyramid, PT 273 + PT 274 (line [509])
pj wnm rmT anx m nTr. (Pl.) nb jn, w. (Pl.) xAa wp (w), t. (Pl.)
TLA: Unas is one who eats people and lives by gods, a lord of messengers who gives orders. -
You stated:
“3) There is no evidence of a word *rm meaning ‘man’ in Early Egyptian to which -T would add a collective value”
I never stated that. Everyone who knows Egyptian grammar basics will know that collectives are in fact singular in form. Example. The [T] doe not make a work collective, the abstract of plurality does. Do I have to get grammar books out now?
This is explained in Mark Collier and Bill Manley’s “How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs” pg. 6.Collier and Manley 1998: pg.6
” The word -xt- is OFTEN written with the PLURAL STROKES although it is not itself a plural word.”
-
Hm…What was your point about rmT alternating with rmt in AE and what is your point about them in relation to Nandi and Négro-Egyptien reconstruction then?
-
The point of my comments earlier was in response to your statements here:
You stated:
“Thank you for providing the Nandi evidence. Since -Vt is a grammatical morpheme (singular) regularly found in Nandi vs -Vk (plural), did you find other cases of -ʧ in Egyptian as a potentially ‘fossilized’ similar grammatical morpheme?”
Your statements indicated that -renet- meaning “man” has a grammatical morpheme -Vt. And my comments were stating that also in Old Egyptian to New Egyptian and Demotic rmT is also grammatically a singular.
Old Egyptian – rmT- man (also grammatically a singular)
Nandi- renet- man -(Vt-singular)I stated:
“No, but – rmT- is also singular according to grammar in Medew NeTer, it is a collective operation (singular), in which the term is singular but yet its meaning is plural. Similar to other feminine singular collectives. I know [ʧ] can also interchange with [t] in Medew Neter as well. If Im not mistaken, I believe I have observed -rmT and rmt in Medew NeTer.”I was adding commentary that also [T] and [t] interchanges in all phases of Egyptian including rmT and rmt. I was also adding the feminine singular collective -rmTt- explained in Hoch, pg: 60].
”
-
OK I think I got your point, but in this case, I think the comparative method would require you to compare ren rather than renet with other Négro-égyptien items.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
