Talk:Semitic languages

Proto-Semitic Article MIA

The Proto-Semitic article, which is linked in the history/origin section of this article, seems to have suffered a fatal HTML flaw. Is it fixable? Can it be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkWorld (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Maltese triliteral roots

Beneath the examples of Arabic and Hebrew roots, the Maltese examples are preceded by the paragraph

In Maltese, the consonantal roots are referred as the mamma of each word, which can be determined by reference to the masculine past tense of the applicable verb. In the case of the verb "to write", the masculine past tense would be kiteb (k-t-b), so that the following nouns and verbs can be formed, using the same mamma always in the same order, but inserting different vowels and, occasionally additional consonants:

Is this needed? It is true for all other Semitic languages, and the same statement is given in the opening paragraph of the section so it is redundant. The only difference is that in Maltese it is called mamma. Etams 17:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etams (talk • contribs)

I agree, attempted revision. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not called mamma. Mamma is what we call the most simple form of the verb, the 3rd person masculine singular of the 1st form of the verb, which may not always exist. The root consonants themselves are called the għerq (root). For example, k-t-b is the għerq but kiteb is the mamma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.245.21 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

map

can anyone add a map of the distribution of modern Semitic languages today? it would be very useful. --BoguslavM 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Plural of Paucity

A plural of paucity appears in Classical Arabic, in a few words. In some degree, it is a fourth grammatical number, referring to 3 to 10 items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.201.1 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Misonmer???

The term "Semitic" for these languages, after Shem, the son of Noah in the Bible, is etymologically a misnomer in some ways (see Semitic)

The Semitic article doesn't say that anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.142.209 (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because you deleted it. Misnomer or not, the article should give an etymological explanation of the name semitic. Landroving Linguist (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Former article List of Proto-Semitic stems

It now seems to be at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:List_of_Proto-Semitic_stems , though I'm not sure why it was deleted from here, or what good it's doing anyone over there... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where those tables went! I believe they would serve a better purpose here.--Xevorim (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Proto-Semitic_stems Solo Owl (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are more than 5 million Hebrew speakers.

5 million is the number of the Israeli Jewish citizens 11 years ago (by the citation). The article does not count:

1. The enlargement in Israeli Jewish population
2. Non-Jewish Israelis. They are about 20% of the Israeli population and most of them learn Hebrew and speak it very well.
3. Other groups how learn it:
   1. Jewish non-Israelis.
   2. Non-Israeli Palestinians.
   3. Bedouins in Sinai.
   4. Archeologists, theologists, linguistic researchers. Hebrew is taught in many universities including in Egypt and Iraq.

According to Hebrew Wikipedia there are 8 million Hebrew speakers. Eddau (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This may all be as you say. However, to be able to change the figure in the text you would have to make us aware of a published reliable source which supports a higher number of Hebrew speakers - like for example a census giving information on language use in the state of Israel. Without such information it would not be appropriate to adjust the number upwards. One more remark - the way I understand this article, it gives the number of first-language speakers, which would probably eliminate all the other groups you mention in your post. All current first-language speakers of Hebrew these days would most likely be Jewish citizens of the state of Israel, who live there at least in the second generation. Would you agree with that statement? Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case the number makes more sense. However, this is neither what the article says (it does not distinguish between first language and foreign languages), nor what the citation says. Eddau (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

At least in the initial paragraph the article talks about native speakers (the inflated number for Arabic needs to be changed, as it is also not supported by the sources cited). Amharic for example has twice as many second-language speakers as the one cited here, being the national language of Ethiopia, a nation of 80 Million. The Ethnologue, which is the source for the Hebrew number, is only concerned with first-language speakers, and gives second language speakers only as a second number. So it would be good to stick to this here. Again, I also think that the number for Arabic is inflated, so if I tell you not to change Hebrew, and then do nothing about Arabic, I am aware that I am applying a double standard here. Landroving Linguist (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

on this page Wikipedia seams to give different numbers. And by the way, the numbers we should look for are not the numbers of mother-tong speakers but of mother-tong-level speakers. A person who was born and is living in a state that its official language is different than the one spoken at home, usually speaks that language as good as a mother tong. Usually the official language is taught at school, spoken on TV and Radio, and is used every dayEddau (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The page you cite again is using inflated numbers. It claims to use SIL's numbers (the Ethnologue), but I just checked there and it states for Hebrew "4,850,000 in Israel (1998). Population total all countries: 5,316,700." Like it or not, it is the only published source cited so far. Find a different reliable published secondary source, and you change the article. Without that, I would not encourage it. Encarta is also cited on your page, but this in itself is a tertiary source, and should have less priority than for example the Ethnologue. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not that I want to see a bigger number near the name of my mother tong. I’m just saying that all the estimations I found both in English Wikipedia and in the Hebrew one, are worthless or out of time. The best thing to do is to write that the precise up to date number is unknown, and was roughly estimated in 1998 as five million. (And of course, it has nothing to do with the number of Arabic speakers. There is a conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs, not between our languages). Eddau (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An eleven year old figure is not that bad, all considering. If it was 5 million then, it won't be 9 or 10 million now, but still within the vicinity of 5 million. If the figure was from 1879 or 1934, I would see your point, but over the past ten years the linguistic landscape of the Middle East cannot have changed that much. Or am I missing something? Landroving Linguist (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, 10 or 9 million does not make seance. Still, assuming that the number of Jewish Israelis is a good estimation for the number of people who speak Hebrew well needs a justification. Finding a clearer mistake in another estimation is not a justification for your estimation. By the way, since 1989 the Israeli Jewish had grown from 4,785,100 to 5,569,200. [1] Eddau (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, on this page someone claims that Encarta claims that there are 7 million natural Hebrew speakers. It is just great. Every source has a different number and none has a good justification. Eddau (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Not everyone in Israel speaks Hebrew as a native language. 2) One must judge the reliability of sources: for speaker numbers, Encarta's source might be reliable, but Encarta itself is not as reliable as Ethnologue, which relies on primary sources, not other secondary sources. (Taivo (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

I found Ethnologue’s estimation and justification. It is bad. The Justification of their estimation of the number of natural Hebrew speakers in the world in 1999 is the addition of the number of natural Hebrew speakers in USA in 1970 and the number of natural Hebrew speakers in Israel in 1995. They also claim that most Jewish Israelis who started learning Hebrew as a second language spoke it in 1999 as a primer language. Adding their estimation of Hebrew natural speakers and that of those who Hebrew became their primer language gives five million. [2] I would never dare writing such estimation in a test. However, if you still want to use an estimation of this kind, add the number of Israeli Jews in 2008 (5,569,000) [3] and that of Israeli citizens living out of Israel in 2003 (650,000) [4]. All together: 6,219,000.Eddau (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You aren't getting it yet. You don't have a source that surpasses Ethnologue. On Wikipedia we don't use original research, which is, in essence, getting numbers from a variety of sources and performing mathematics on them. At this time, the only reliable source for the total number of native speakers of Hebrew is Ethnologue. No one has said that Ethnologue is perfect, but it's still the best we have for total numbers of native speakers in most cases. (Taivo (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Oh, I get it very well. Ethnologue is worthless just like any speculation that any one else can do. As I already wrote, I would never dare writing anything of this kind in a test. The best we can do is to write that the number of Hebrew speakers is not known. Eddau (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you still think that this is a term paper based on original research. Ethnologue is not worthless, no one said that except for you. Despite your accusation, Ethnologue cites its original sources and is not "speculation". While the sources may be old, they are still cited. Ethnologue is a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition and you have not offered any other reliable source to back up your numbers. You are trying to substitute original research instead of a reliable, secondary source. I object to "unknown" as a status because there is a verifiable, reliable number available. It may not be accurate today, but it is based on a published fact, not mathematical manipulation. This isn't a term paper or test, and if you were using Ethnologue as a referenced source, you would not be marked off since you have provided a reference rather than just guessing (which is what you have been doing so far). (Taivo (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

What is the statistical significance of Ethnologue's findings?Eddau (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second Taivo's thoughts here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of published knowledge. There are some things on Wikipedia which I know not to be true. However, the facts stated are based on published sources, whereas I cannot point to any published sources to verify my claim. That is why I will not change the articles. So whether the Ethnologue is correct or totally off in its figures on Hebrew (I suspect that actually it is not significantly off the mark), is pointless as to the subject of this discussion: Wikipedia should only contain facts supported by published reliable secondary sources. By the way, Encarta uses the Ethnologue figures in most cases. So the fact that you find different numbers for the same languages all over Wikipedia is not a problem of the Ethnologue or Encarta, but it is the result of edits by Wikipedia users who have substituted the published results by their own research. The inflated number for Arabic in this article is an example. Neither Ethnologue nor Encarta ever claimed that there are 422 million speakers of Arabic on this planet. Landroving Linguist (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of fixing of the speaker numbers. The Encarta reference, for example, is no longer online, so I removed it and replaced the numbers for Arabic with the Ethnologue number. (Taivo (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Heading

In the main article, under "Morphology: triliteral roots", it is said "Verbs in other non-Semitic Afroasiatic languages show similar radical patterns". In the following passage, only Kabyle is mentioned. Perhaps examples can be produced from Hausa, Somali and other languages of similar inflections. As it is, the false impression is given, that there is more similarity than is actually the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.121.193 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the example given, involving Kabyle afeg, affug, yufeg, fly, and

Hebrew hafleg, haflaga, heflig, sail, there is an "l" in the Hebrew but not in the Kabyle

word. This contradicts the article on Afroasiatic Languages, under "Cognates",

where it is implied that Semitic "l" corresponds to Berber "l". Considerable change of meaning

is also assumed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.194 (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Common vocabulary

Under the above caption, only six examples are given. The much larger number of common words in Semitic languages can be estimated numerically. Otherwise, the impression will be given that the common vocabulary is much smaller than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.29.1 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC) For instance, about 90% of the words in Classical Arabic can be found elsewhere in other Semitic languages. The proportion of Semitic words in Ethiopic and Babylonian is smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.18.65 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide sources, please add this information. Dan ☺ 07:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I might just as well be asked for proof that 2+2=4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.149.95 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's doubting your statement, but Wikipedia strives to provide information "based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (read about it). Dan ☺ 11:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Origins wrong dates

The original text said 5750 BP and 2800 BP, dates for the born of the semitic languages in the Levant and for the introduction of semitic languages in Ethiopia. But in fact cited source say: 5750 years ago and 2800 years ago , so the correct years are 2750 BC and 800 BC. I'm not sure if this support the asiatic origin hypothesis, but certainlly these dates concur with the rise of the Akkadians and with archeological-agriculture changes in Ethiopia, respectively. --Bentaguayre (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Just that the math for the first date results in 3750 before Christ. I'm going to correct that. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Classification

Per our classification, Semitic consists of E, W, & S branches. W in turn consists of C & S branches. Thus West = Central. Which should we go with here? — kwami (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like two competing classification schemes (both found in Hetzron's The Semitic Languages) have been conflated. I think the most conservative route is to get rid of the "West Semitic" node and just go with E, C, & S branches as primary. In Ruhlen, Semitic is broken into E & W, then W is broken into C & S. But that's not universally accepted. While the lower level nodes are well-accepted (Ethiopic, South Arabian, Arabic, Northwest, East), the relationship between them is a bit in flux. --Taivo (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What you say sir is wrong. The purpose of compiling the Central and South Semitic under the label "West Semitic" is to indicate that both CS and SS have a common origin that postdates the split of the Semitic family into an Eastern and Western branches. Most writers still recognize this early split, even Hetzron himself. And I would advise User:Kwamikagami to stop dealing with such big questions in Semitic scholarship in as laid-back manner as he does. Those scholars who made the classification are not less smart than you. You would be very wrong if you think you can outsmart them in 5 minute thinking. I also advise you that when you decide next time to do such a major change as striking out the classification "West Semitic" from every article in Wikipedia, you should wait first until you hear many opinions from people who know better than you. What you are doing here is totally inappropriate. Finally, I am not expert in Wikipedia rules but I think that when somebody reverts you and asks you for explanation, you should explain to them clearly what you're doing, not override them. I think what you did is called vandalism or edit warring.--HD86 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The division of the Semitic family into an Eastern and Western branches is based on phonological, morphological, and lexical isoglosses. I am not going to explain much here, but one of the main isoglosses that distinguish an east-west split is the simplified verb system in WS. Most respectable sources recognize this level of classification.--HD86 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The evolvement of the PS subjunctive pefective verb into an indicative imperfective in both CS and SS is an example of an isogloss that groups the two branches together as opposed to ES.--HD86 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we should come to consensus here, but then we also had a rather egregious and long-standing error, with two conflicting classifications conflated into one. I won't be able to my library till next week, but it is common to exclude S Sem from W Sem. As for "when somebody reverts you and asks you for explanation", you'll have to explain what you mean; you have never asked me for anything as far as I can see. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Central Semitic and West Semitic are not equal categories. Any classification system that does not recognize an early east-west split (the west including both CS and SS) should not be promoted here because it is simply a fringe opinion. As I said already, there are many isoglosses that group CS and SS together as opposed to ES. I expect you to restore the "West Semitic" category ASP because it is a crucial classification level that exists in the best references dealing with the subject.--HD86 (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I said I don't want to elaborate much here, but I am going to say the following. The basic idea in Hetzron's work is that a classification system should give preference to shared innovations over shared retentions. The presence in SS of such features as the s- preformative and the yaqattal verbal class shouldn't be given much importance in classification because these are retentions from PS, not innovations. On the other hand, the use of the PS subjunctive pefective verb as an indicative imperfective in SS is very important because this is a shared innovation that works as an ideal isogloss. The writers to whom you refer are mostly unfamiliar with this logic.--HD86 (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No one here doubts Hetzron's methodology. He is an outstanding scholar. There is no question that Semitic forms a node of Afro-Asiatic, just as there is no question that there are Ethiopic, South Arabian, East Semitic, Northwest Semitic, and Arabic nodes within Semitic. But there is not yet unanimity on what comes in between and how these pieces are arranged. South Arabian is a good example. There has been recent argumentation that South Arabian forms an independent branch of Semitic coordinate with East and "West". So a conservative classification is what I suggested we follow here-- list C, S, & E branches separately. The Semitic classification in Wikipedia last week was a mess, with conflicting classification schemes based on the two different charts in Hetzron's The Semitic Languages. Kwami thankfully cleaned up that classification and cleared up the mess. Now, if a consensus forms that West Semitic is a widely-accepted and useful node, then we can easily add it back in, but without the mess of different classifications that had existed in Wikipedia before. --Taivo (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how the page exactly was before, and I am not saying that the mess should be kept. What I am saying is that removing the "West Semitic" category from the page and dogmatically removing it from every article in Wikipedia is a big mistake. As for South Arabian, I suppose that what you mean is Modern South Arabian, because as far as I know there is nobody contending against the classification of Ancient South Arabian with Ethiopic in a single family. The question of Modern South Arabian is irrelevant here. I don't see how this matter should lead to canceling the "West Semitic" family. When I was talking above about the s- preformative and the yaqattal verbal form I was specifically referring to Modern South Arabian, not to anything else. Anyway, as I said the question of Modern South Arabian is irrelevant to our case.--HD86 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If W = C + S, and S is promoted to an equal level with W, then W = C. As Taivo says, it's easy enough to add W back in if need be. It's also common to leave out a few intermediate nodes in language info boxes because the cladistic list gets unmanageably long in some cases, so leaving out W doesn't mean in itself that it's rejected. BTW, there were many cases where W was used as shorthand for NW. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The German article makes reference to scholars who have made a (convincing, as far as I can see) case that South Semitic isn't a valid node, either, as it is based on a retention, not an innovation, and that Old South Arabian (better: Sayhadic – I wish the Semiticists would finally get rid of those confusing labels with all their historical baggage) is actually part of Central Semitic. As far as I can see, the only commonly agreed upon nodes are exactly those six listed in the article now. But the tree referred to in the article is the one on page 7, in the section right on the topic of classification by Alice Faber – who, if I recall correctly, accepts West Semitic and justifies doing so in the text. This tree is the best classification we have to date, and can be taken as reflecting an important opinion, if not consensus, at least among those who care to justify their classification with the current best practice of giving shared innovations (even though this consensus is bound to change, thanks to more recent arguments such as those I alluded to above). Other classifications, if they do not follow this current gold standard of scholarship, cannot be taken as equally important. So I say we either follow the tree on page 7 in Hetzron 1997, or we follow a conservative, minimal consensus and acknowledge only the six nodes listed in the article as "fairly uncontroversial". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Headline of the grammar section

The grammar section of this page begins with "...although variation has naturally occurred – even within the same language as it evolved through time, such as Arabic from the 6th century AD to the present."

It then goes on to explain some of the ways in which all the Semitic languages have changed, with no specific focus on Arabic. It is important to recognize that Arabs regard the contemporary literary register of their language- Modern Standard Arabic- as being a continuation of the Qur'anic Arabic spoken in the 6th century A.D. Aside from the presence of modern loanwords in MSA, Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic are virtually identical in terms of grammar, morphology, and pronunciation. It is the only form of Arabic taught in schools, spoken in professional situations such as the news or government, and transcribed into literature. The survival and integrity of the Arabic language is a matter of cultural pride for many Arabs, and most would surely attest that the "real" Arabic - الفصحى, the term used collectively for the language of the Qur'an and the language spoken on Al-Jazeera - is by far the closest to its historical roots out of all the Semitic languages. In my opinion, they would be correct.

I feel that the statement in question is inflammatory and also misleading, by not specifying that it is the spoken Arabic dialects which have changed from 6th-century Arabic. MSA is written with the same grammar as the Qur'an, and bears the same proto-Semitic case endings when read aloud. It is my opinion that this specific singling-out of Arabic should either be clarified, or (preferably) removed altogether, as it adds no new information to the article.

Hebrew number sources

Some weeks ago, user Akivagoldberg edited the Hebrew number, replacing the original source (Ethnologue) with a new online-source, a commercial translation page, which reveals a speaker number for Hebrew just as a mouse-over feature. Do we really accept such a source as a better source than the Ethnologue? I have the impression that once more someone was happy to stumble across any web-page just to have a reference for an inflated number. Landroving Linguist (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes contents vs References

Am I missing something, or do many references mentioned in the Notes section not have a corresponding listing in the References section? For example, notes 14 - 16 are:
• Dolgopolsky 1999, p. 29.
• Taylor 1997, p. 147.
• Woodard 2008, p. 219.
Dolgopolsky is used in several notes, but there is no title associated with Dolgopolsky (or the other two mentioned) in the Reference section. Without a title to refer to, aren't these citations more or less worthless? — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A further note regarding Dolgopolsky. While attempting to locate what title by Dolgopolsky may be being referred to, the possible titles appear to be his works in Nostratic. Considering Nostratic is not Semitic, and considering Nostratic still is not well accepted by mainstream scholarship, it would be probably be best to find citations that are not based on Nostratic research to back up contested proposals in Semitics. Citations from works concentrating on Semitics would be a wiser choice. — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)