Talk:Afroasiatic languages

Additional Cognates

Independent of Ehret, I've found other possible cognates:

• *y-m 'sea' attested in Berber (for example, Tuareg àman 'water' offers a possible cognate), Egyptian (iumā / imā 'sea'), and Semitic (Hebrew *yam).

Can this be added, in addition to other words and their respective cognates that I have found? -Ano-User (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have published this somewhere, it would be welcome. Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually I have not published this anywhere, but I did research on my own using a French-Tuareg dictionary, an Egyptian Hieroglyphics Reading Book, and a Hebrew Dictionary. I decided to look for words that would be in a Swadesh word list and I chose a word randomly; the word in this case was 'sea.' I have, however, found more possible cognates that I have not listed, using the same sources. -Ano-User (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Do any of those books actually point out this correspondence or are you the discoverer? This is important because of WP:NOR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The books do not point out this correspondence, I am the discoverer of it, but since putting the information in the article would go against the WP:NOR policy, then it should not be added. Sorry for not having realized that. -Ano-User (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Euler Diagram

The Euler Diagram is completely incomprehensible to me and I've studied linguistics and several sciences, can someone make some other kind of diagram? I'm certain almost no one could figure out what it is actually saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.167.161 (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You could have said it more politely, but I agree with you entirely. Landroving Linguist (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not make the diagram but I understand it, so if the above represents a request to the community perhaps you should also explain more about what would make the diagram better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to give my interpretation of the diagram: If a language or sub-family is circled in a certain colour, then the linguist associated with that colour (e.g. dark blue for Diakonoff) includes this language into AA (I don't understand the significance of the different font sizes for languages). I would then deduce that when a language or family is not circled in that colour, the linguist would exclude this from AA. If this is the case, why then is Omotic only circled in green for Militarev? We see in the table below (which is definitely more helpful) that only Newman and Diakonoff exclude Omotic from Afroasiatic - the diagram makes the inclusion of Omotic appear to be a crackpot fringe opinion, which it definitely is not. Of course, I may misread the diagram, but that is the point of this complaint - if it is so easily misunderstood, maybe it should better be left out. As I say, all the information is perfectly arranged in the table below the diagram. Landroving Linguist (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the circles are only meant to define any level of grouping, but I see what you mean by the implication that they could be interpreted differently, making it seem like, for example, Ehret does not believe Egyptian is Afro Asiatic, which he does.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So I did mis-interpret the diagram. The caption actually gives an indication how to read it, but on a challenged mind like mine it just appeared to be a maze of colourful lines. Once you understand that uncircled languages are not meant to be excluded, but just not grouped with other languages, things become clear. However, the diagram has then no way to tell you that Diakonoff and Newman in fact do exclude Omotic from Afroasiatic. And still I don't get the significance of the bold print for Cushitic. Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that Cushitic is being presented as a large/diverse group in itself, compared to the others?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Macrofamily"

The term "macrofamily" is not widely used for this language family. It is not a technical term used in historical linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious Afro-asiatic/Afrasian should be labelled as a macrofamily rather than simply a family. In fact, the illustration's title read as a "One of the world's major language families", so please don't keep undoing my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talskubilos (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, since "macrofamily" is not a standard term in linguistics, your opinion of "rather obvious" is immaterial. The great majority of historical linguists call this a language family, not a "macrofamily". In Campbell and Mixco's A Glossary of Historical Linguistics, for example, the term is said to only apply to controversial and speculative groupings. Afroasiatic is not in that category. Your editing is not based on references or common usage in linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the term "macrofamily" is mostly used among language comparativists (e.g. Nostraticists), but it's still valid when applied to a large grouping like AA. This is the only reason why it has "controversial and speculative" connotations (for that matter, I think the definition in Wikipedia's article is rather misleading, so I'm going to revise it before coming back to this article).

For the specific use of this term, see for example the expression "Afro-Asiatic Macrofamily" in The Tower of Babel when referring to Militarev's articles (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One usage of "macrofamily" in reference to Afroasiatic does not constitute sufficient reason to change it here. In far more sources it is called a "language family". "Macrofamily" applies to Nostratic because Nostratic is controversial in a way that Afroasiatic is not. The claim that Afroasiatic is not a valid genetic grouping is marginal, not mainstream, whereas Nostratic's position is the opposite. --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have clarified the macrolanguage intro with a reference to Campbell and Mixco to make its usage clear--it is only used for speculative groupings, not uncontroversial ones such as Afroasiatic. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're saying "macrolanguage" when actually referring to "macrofamily", which AREN'T synonyms. I've changed Campbell-Mixco by Trask, who literally says "a macro-family is an exceptionally large language family", which is the case of Afrasian/Afro-Asiatic. The confusion arises because this term (better spelled with hyphen) has negative connonations because it's mostly applied to controversial groupings like Nostratic, not because it's specifically devised to designate them. Talskubilos (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both "macrolanguage" and "macrofamily" are rather ad-hoc and not very usable, but I did, indeed, mean "macrofamily". It's still not appropriate to Afro-asiatic because only Trask uses it. "Language family" is a far more common term here. --Taivo (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First, you must get a consensus for changing "language family" to "macrofamily" before you make the change. Read WP:BRD before you go editing again. Your change was opposed, so before making it again you must build a consensus here on the Talk page BEFORE making the change again. You have not built a consensus.

Second, Trask's usage of "macrofamily" in referring to Afro-asiatic is a minority usage, so I switched the order of the Campbell & Mixco reference (which you should NOT have deleted) and the Trask reference at macrofamily to reflect the most common usage first and the less common usage second. --Taivo (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-edited macrofamily to unsure the proper definition hierarchy is maintained. Firstly, a macro-family is broadly defined as a very large language family. What happens most proposed macro-families are speculative or controversial groupings of existing language families, hence its restricted use. I see no problem in defining Afro-asiatic as "one of world's largest language families or macro-family" provided the bare definition (that is, without further connotations) of this term is applied. Talskubilos (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The following sources use "language family" to describe Afro-Asiatic:

• William Bright, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992, Oxford) [as well as other works by Bright]
• Merritt Ruhlen, On the Origin of Languages (1994, Stanford) [as well as other works by Ruhlen]
• Vitaly Shevoroshkin & Alexis Manaster Ramer, "Some Recent Work on the Remote Relations of Languages," Spring from Some Common Source, Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages (1991, Stanford), pp. 178-199. [They use "macrofamily" only for proposals of deep relationship such as Sino-Caucasian and Nostratic, and "language family" for established groups such as Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European]

These references demonstrate the most common usage of "language family" versus "macrofamily" and show that Afro-asiatic is most consistently called a "language family" and not a "macrofamily". --Taivo (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course AA is a "language family". In absence of consensus, I'll leave out the usage of "macrofamily" for AA but change it for Nostratic in the footnotes. Talskubilos (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the correct usage of "macrofamily". Now you need to stop your edit warring at macrofamily. You are the "innovator" there since the text as I found it already emphasized the "proposed" nature of the term. You are still subject to WP:BRD there and must reach a consensus before putting any emphasis on a minority position in linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You could also try a Google search with the terms "Afro-Asiatic macro-family" or "Afrasian macro-family" and you'll be surprised. Omotic languages quotes a Diakonoff's article which mentions the expression "Afrasian macrofamily". So you've got two references of Afro-asiatic as a macro.family. Talskubilos (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be careful of calling Afro-Asiatic a linguistic "macro-family" since the term is often applied to speculative, and/or controversial, groupings of languages. Personally, I think a language family of over 300 languages is not "exceptionally large" when compared to the Austronesian languages or Niger-Congo, for example. In any case, I'd say Afro-Asiatic should be left as a "language family" on the main article. -Ano-User (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem lies on the controversial use of the term. From printed sources, it looks like the taxomonical terms "family/"stock" and "macro-family"/"phylum" are used to describe two different levels of language grouping. But AA happens to be labelled as a family on Ruhlen's book A guide to the World' Languages. Talskubilos (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias towards Arabic

This article seems to minimize the extensive influence of Berber in Africa. Berber is spoken throughout North Africa, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and parts of Egypt, Libya and Mauritania. It has a long history, much longer than Arabic on the continent and millions of native speakers. Please do not attempt to minimize this influence by claiming it is only spoken in North Africa or the "Sahel" it is much more extensive than that and has an extensive reach into West Africa. Please use the talk page, especially as you are an anonymous editor. Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherperson2012 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how there is a bias towards Arabic when it is only mentioned in one sentence in the introduction. The Berber languages have also not in any way been minimized. It is indicated that "Other widely-spoken Afroasiatic languages include the Berber languages, which are spoken natively across Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, as well as parts of Niger, Libya and Mali." The fact that Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken primarily in the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Sahel is also referenced [1] whereas the assertion that the phylum is dominant in West Africa in general (where the Niger-Congo languages actually predominate) instead of just the Sahel is not. 76.65.172.191 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

THE Oldest Language Group, not "one of the oldest."

I write this because I just came from the Indo-European language page which stated that the family of languages was the second oldest AFTER the Afro-Asiatic family. Please change for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.213.76 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)