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)

Unfortunately this is probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia. They should probably be called Akkaddian languages since that is region of the oldest know record. And even the Biblical account references "Semitic languages" spoken by people not descendant from Shem by it's own account. At least a note about this etymology could be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.95.156 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2014 (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)

Living Semitic languages by number of speakers

The row about Hebrew in the paragraph "Living Semitic languages by number of speakers" is WAY out of date. I've checked the refrence and it says "Population 4,850,000 in Israel (1998). Population total all countries: 5,316,700." which is true to 1998, not 2012. Israel's population is almost 7,900,000 people, which is almost twice the people stated in the site. Now, we are not in 1998, and I don't know exactly how to fix it without getting a message in my talk page, so I'm counting on you to fix it, by any means you thing are 'kosher'.

P.S. I have the ref. about Israel's population (from the respective Wikipedia article) here: http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/yarhon/b1_e.htm

Thanks in advance, TomeHale (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

I don't want to repeat everything I have said earlier on this page. Bottom line is that whatever number is stated on a wikipedia article, it needs to be drawn from a good published secondary source of unblemished reputation. If you can provide such a source, there is no problem. Two things you must not do: original research (like stating on wikipedia your own conclusions based on population size), or quoting wikipedia, even if the page is in a different-language wikipedia. Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Arabic speakers

This is from the infobox in the Arabic article Native speakers more than 422 million (2008)[7] This article gives half that number of Arabic speakers. Alázhlis (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rv. to a RS fig of 280M. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment.

Some followers of Abrahamic religions claim that the Semitic languages (especially Arabic, Hebrew) were chosen by God because these languages are more comprehensive. Can anyone attest to this? Pass a Method talk 11:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never encountered the claim -- neither in scholarly histories of linguistics nor in silly online crypto-linguistics. Perhaps you can google a bit and find a link to someone making this claim? -Ben (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard somewhat similar claims: God spoke Hebrew, as did Adam and Eve. It was the original language from which all others descend. You can most definitely find books purporting to establish Hebrew as proto-World. The Koran should not be translated, because Arabic is a divine creation, and the perfect language. None of the loans in Arabic are loans, because that would imply that Arabic had once been less perfect, had a need to borrow words. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the way User:Pass a Method described it makes it sound like the languages pre-existed their 'selection' by God -- almost as if the Deity thought "I need to communicate with humanity using verbs with second-person gender markers. Hmm -- guess I'd better find a Hebrew speaker." Ben (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Semitic language around the 1st century A.D.

Some comments on the Image on the distribution of Semitic language around the 1st century A.D (Semitic_1st_AD.svg):

It is doubtful that Amharic can be dated so far back and was spoken so far South at 1st century AD. It's not only a modern language; ancient Amhara region is said to have been conquered in the 9th century AD and Amharic language only became the royal language in 13th century AD, spread mainly in the 14th century with a lot of conquests under Gäbrä Mäsqäl ʿAmdä-Ṣiyon.

It shoult be termed Old South Arabian instead of Southern Arabic, to avoid confusion...

One might consider to separate (the predecessor of) Modern South Arabian, which is presumably closer to Ge'ez than the other, and Old South Arabian.

--Aferghes (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with non-Semitic Afroasiatic languages

How do you proove that kab. afeg / yufeg is more probable to be related with Hebrew hafleg than with general sem. ʕwf ? How is a possible relation with ʕwf / teʿufah to be excluded ?

Though afeg / yufeg looks biconsonantal, one could yet argue for a weak root with three radicals (ufg) and lost u in certain positions: *yáufəg > yafəg ; *yáusi > yas; *yáufi > yaf; but *yəúfag > yufəg; cf. for example also Arab. yaǧidu from wgd, yaṣilu from wṣl and yalidu from wld.

--Aferghes (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately if anyone wants to "prove" something using their own deductive reasoning, wikipedia talkpage is a bad place, per WP:OR, WP:TALK etc. it must be done on another website, such as a blog, forum etc. We lowly wikipedia editors are prohibited from "proving" anything in this way, unless an externally published source has already "proved" it in exactly the same way. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is, what source is claiming (a) that kab. afeg might be related to hafleg and (b) that it is certainly unrelated to ʿwf, so that people could read more about this idea and its context... so it might be mentioned, according to whom, this is said... and that the information becomes verifiable. I don't want to prove anything.

--Aferghes (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally misunderstood, but I see what you are saying now! I didn't even realize you were questioning the correctness of something already in the present article! We get folks all the time who try to use the talkpage for their own "proofs", but this time I spoke too soon! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind, I should have formulated it more directly to the point.

--Aferghes (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Gurage

As noted at Gurage languages, the languages of the Gurage do not form a coherent group, but belong to different sub-branches of Southern Ethio-Semitic. As far as I can see, this is sufficient explanation for their diversity and a linguistic basis for grouping them together as a branch of their own is lacking. Moreover, I have seen no argument ascribing their alleged divergence from the rest of Semitic (which, in light of their classification as belonging to specific subgroups of Southern Ethio-Semitic, would seem to be more apparent than anything else, or at least it is completely unclear what exactly their divergent qualities are) to an early split from Semitic, rather than, for example, areal influence from Cushitic (or other non-Semitic) languages, or the retention of ancient features which have disappeared in their close non-Gurage relatives. Therefore, this argument for an East African origin of Semitic is simply mistaken (unless it can be shown that the accepted classification of Southern Ethio-Semitic is completely wrong, and that would require a really high-quality citation, not just a throwaway remark like Blench's), and other arguments in its favour are nowhere to be seen. I propose to remove the Gurage argument, along with the East African proposal, from the article. No scholar advocates an East African origin for Semitic nowadays, as far as I am aware; importantly, even Blench does not seriously do that, as his phrasing makes clear. (Note that while the traditional bipartition of Ethio-Semitic into a northern and southern branch has recently been challenged, even if the objection is valid – and it might very well be –, this does not weaken the argument against an exclusive Gurage branch at all, rather strengthen it because it would mean that the so-called Gurage languages do not even all belong to the same primary subbranch of Ethio-Semitic.)--Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is good news to read that the idea of an East African origin of Semitic is finally being abandoned by scholars, particularly considering that the Semitic speakers themselves have vigorously maintained the non-African origin of Semitic for centuries. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic here? If so, your sarcasm makes no sense, as I'm not aware that this idea was ever seriously maintained by any significant group of Semiticists. Also note that this concerns only the immediate origin of Semitic (the location of the Semitic Urheimat); the idea that the ultimate origin of all Afro-Asiatic languages is somewhere in East Africa (or at the very least somewhere in Africa) seems still widespread, notwithstanding some dissenters – chiefly Alexander Militarev – who would like to place both the Semitic and the Afro-Asiatic homeland in the Levant. Our article on Proto-Semitic reports the Levantine origin of Semitic as the hypothesis which is now prevalent, notwithstanding the assumption of a slightly more remote origin in North Africa because of close connections to Berber (and to a lesser extent Egyptian), but the ultimate origin of Afro-Asiatic is currently still considered to be in Africa by a majority of scholars, mainly on the strength of the centre of diversity argument. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a strong argument if things are rarely more mysterious than they seem in that regard. But if nobody seriously supports an African origin of Semitic, I agree with you that it does not need much weight in the article. If someone prominent has held to such a theory, he might be mentioned briefly for the historiographic aspect. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, Ge'ez texts, imported from Arabia in the 8th Century BC, give the first direct record of Ethiopian Semitic."

Don't know what that means... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that... of course we don't know of any Ge'ez texts that were specifically imported from Arabia in the 8th century BC, presumably they meant the South Arabian Epigraphic Script, so I have rephrased and adjusted it accordingly. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File: Semitic languages - Chronology

I have corrected this file, after its deletion from this page (Semitic languages) by user Til Eulenspiegel. I had 'XVI' intead of 'XIV' as the date of the first texts in Amharic; a misspelling, I guess. Any other correction is very welcome. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msanzl (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Transliteration of Ethio-Semitic vowels ....

... needs to be standardized. Long i, long u should for clearness's sake always carry macrons (Semitists, but not everybody, know(s) that there are no short i, u) - in accordance with chapter Vowels. Transliterations in chapters Common vocabulary and Cardinal Numerals should have ə instead of i/e.

"libb", "lissan": Since when is there a sign to denote gemination in Ge'ez?

Nuremberg - Ángel.García 131.188.2.12 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

Landroving Linguist reverted my change, saying that the paragraph "lists mother tongue speakers only". Who has decided that and why does the table below speak about "by number of speakers"? I looked at Amharic. It only tells about a census and the other source say "the majority of the 25 million or so speakers of Amharic can be found in Ethiopia". The figures for Hebrew does specifically mention the whole world. This source, though, say "The Semitic group of languages includes Arabic (206 million native speakers), Amharic (27 million), Hebrew (7 million), Tigrinya (6.7 million), Syriac (1 million) and Maltese (419 thousand)". It is used one time in the article and that is one time in the table. There is also no consistency between the lead and table, let alone between what the sources say and the figures given here.

We should use the best sources available and that does not always mean Ethnologue. In this case, the figure for Arabic is 15 years old. Why use that when we have better figures? Similary, the figures for Hebrew are a year older and that is probably why they are not used here. Their figures for Amharic and Tigrigna are from 2007 so it is pretty much better. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the Ethiopia source shouldn't be used anymore if its info is 15 years old. There are indeed plenty of other much better and reliable sources we could use. Just like that wrong number of Arab speakers, that source gives the absurd number of 5.3 million Hebrew speakers, while most sources today say it is closer to 9 million, if not even more. Yambaram (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If you all look at the previous headings higher up on this page, you will notice that we have had these discussions before. I do not want to put your motives in question, but in the past we have had people with nationalistic agendas put up insane speaker numbers of some languages, and the only way to counter inflated numbers is by demanding reliable secondary sources for each number (such as Ethnologue), and by applying comparable standards in lists that compare items. So it does not make much sense if the same paragraph lists only first-language speakers of Amharic, but second-language speakers of Arabic and other languages (Amharic would have at least 50 million first and second language speakers). I certainly agree that Ethnologue does not have to be the best source for any language on this planet, but it is certainly not going to be topped by an online encyclopedia published in Swedish (a tertiary source). If you can provide a reliable secondary source which gives better numbers, you are welcome to do so, and your edit is not going to be reverted.

There is method to only use first-language speakers for comparisons like that, as second-language speaker numbers are very hard to come by, and that makes comparison almost impossible. And on the age of sources: 15 years is not that bad when you come to speaker numbers. Maybe the population of Israel has increased sharply since 1998, but that does not mean that the number of mother-tongue Hebrew speakers has increased likewise. Any speculation to that effect will be original research, as long as you cannot provide a reliable source on this. The same will be even more true of Arabic. The number of speakers will not have increased in 15 years from 206 to 280 million. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still no consistency here. Regarding Amharic, Ethnologue puts it at 22 million plus 4 million.

The figure of 293 million Arabic speakers is used in the main article. The same source (Nationalencyklopedin) and edition is used in the articles about Punjabi, Mandarin, German, Japanese, Portugese, Bengali, Spanish, Korean, Russian and English. The edition from 2007 is mentioned in over 80 articles. One of them is List of languages by number of native speakers, where the estimates from Nationalencyklopedin are listed in a table. So obviously people think that source is good. In that list and List of languages by total number of speakers, these other estimates are given for Arabic: 280 million native and 422 million total in the Arab world. Ethnologue say 223 million here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you are right. I did not check the latest edition Ethnologue numbers for Arabic, and certainly the numbers for Amharic are too high in this article. Thanks for catching me on this. I will correct the figures right away. Again, the Swedish source is a tertiary source, which does not (like Ethnologue) state its original sources. Whether a majority of Wikipedia editors likes this source or not is besides the point; according to WP:RS this is an inferior source to Ethnologue. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because it shows that the estimates from Nationalencyklopedin are accepted. It is a RS and have updated numbers. If we were talking about equal situations, you are right that Ethnologue would be better. But it is giving an old figure, which is much lower than the newer ones.

I mentioned other numbers (280 million by Prochazka and 422 million by UNESCO). I have now looked at The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics from 2012 by Jonathan Owens. He says that "Arabic is one of the world's largest languages, spoken natively by nearly 300 million people" and perhaps 60 million second language speakers. He mentions Ethnologue's estimate of 206 million and says it "today seems too low rather than too high". He points out that Egypt alone has more than 84 million inhabitants now and that nearly all of them speak Arabic. He talks about Prochazka's 2006 estimate and says it is "reasonable, if perhaps slighly low". He also says that a figure of 452 million total speakers "should be treated with great caution" as there is no specific definition of that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, WP:RS is quite specific that information from other Wikipedia pages should not be admitted as evidence anywhere else on Wikipedia. If people appreciate the Swedish National Encyclopaedia as a source on those pages, it must not stop us from applying correct Wikipedia policy on this page here. Each page has a different set of people who have an eye on things, and some do better jobs than others. But in any case, I believe that Owens 2012 is a reliable source in all respects, and if you use this source, I will make no objection. You could write (based on his evaluation of Prochazka's estimate) Arabic (280 million - 300 million). Greetings, Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not using "other Wikipedia pages as evidence". I am explaining to you that Nationalencyklopedin is a good source and accepted here. Nothing in Wikipedia's policies stop us from using Nationalencyklopedin as a source.

The estimate does not look to be based on Prochazka. I will the add the number now and source it with the book by Jonathan Owens. I saw it was from 2013, by the way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing

There is the spoken language and the written language. There is no heading for the written language, no description that the language is wrote and read from the right to left.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, not all Semitic languages are written from right to left, and at least four different script systems are currently employed, not even mentioning all systems no longer in use nowadays. So it may be best to refer to different writing systems on the individual language pages. Landroving Linguist (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Akkadian is perhaps not the oldest attested Semitic language...Canaanitic?

I originally posted this to the Akkadian Language talk page...should have been on this talk page from the beginning, d'oh!

According to an article on sciencedaily.com, Canaanitic is the oldest attested of the Semitic languages.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm

"Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian scripts over the past 25 years. In his Hebrew University lecture, he provided the interpretation for Semitic passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago, inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but Egyptologists agree that the texts are older. The dates proposed for them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.

The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately recognized the Semitic words for 'mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and Semitic texts elucidate each other."

Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of Egypt.

The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing of Semitic magic.

"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic and the other Semitic languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare words in the Bible, he said.

"This is a sensational discovery," said Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and Proto-Canaanite, in particular."" - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, but note it says the text is "Proto-Canaanite", not "Canaanitic"... I am very interested but could not find any update at that link, anything on this since '07? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Til Eulenspiegel! Well, I use those terms synonymously. Proto-Canaanite is often used of early Phoenician and early Hebrew...I just say Canaanitic which is purposefully general, but also specific in not implicating other Northwest Semitic languages. The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia edited by Roger D. Woodard (2008)...http://books.google.com/books?id=vTrT-bZyuPcC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq= mentions the paper on page 4 of Chapter 1. Cf. Also...https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ANE-2/conversations/topics/3644. In searching through JSTOR, Mr. Steiner has other papers on similar topics. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

An important discovery if it's born out. Should keep the "perhaps" until then. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But there are Sumerian samples from as far back as 3500-3200 BC.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_tablet) 50.88.95.156 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sumerian is not a Semitic language. Moreover, the oldest coherent texts which are unambiguously written in Sumerian only date to c. 2800 or 2600 BC. Before that date, the language of the texts cannot be determined with full certainty – the possibility that it is a different language that was originally written cannot be excluded due to the logographic nature of the writing system, although only a deviant syntax (from the Sumerian point of view) would possibly positively point to this possibility. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This uncertainty is also noted in the article Kish tablet which you are linking to. Sumerian language#Development notes that the Jemdet Nasr texts from c. 3100–3000 BC are identified with Sumerian already, by the way, so the real question concerns the preliterary texts from c. 3350–3100 BC. But then, there are not even Semitic elements (such as personal names) in the earliest Sumerian texts prior to c. 2600 BC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility

How mutually intelligible are the languages? Is it easy for speaker of one such language to learn another in this family? 86.178.174.199 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Even many modern Arabic dialects are only partly mutually intelligible at best, the more distant, the less, generally speaking (I am applying the standard of an illiterate monolingual speaker, say, a child, encountering another monolingual speaker and trying to understand them immediately, without prior exposure nor any preparation). Arabic is a classic case of a dialect continuum. Especially Moroccan Arabic and also Algerian and Tunisian Arabic, where Berber influence is strong, are very divergent. The Arabic dialects are perhaps comparable to the Slavic languages in this respect. It is possible that the Arabic dialects are re-converging to some (minor) extent, though; but the presence of a common written language does gloss over the profound differences between the dialects not unlike the Chinese situation.

Given this situation in Arabic alone, one can imagine that other Semitic languages (apart from those that are quite closely related to each other, such as Aramaic, Modern South Arabic or some Ethio-Semitic subtypes) are basically completely unintelligible among each other and with Arabic. Nor would it necessarily be easy to move from one Semitic language to another; sure, easier to learn than a completely unrelated language or even "only" a distantly related language such a Berber dialect, but nevertheless hardly really easy. But it generally depends very closely on degree of relationship – the more closely related a language is, the easier it is to learn, as a good rule of thumb. So Hebrew will probably come somewhat easier to a speaker of Arabic than Amharic. But it really, really, depends on your definition of "easy" – a Lebanese would probably think that Maltese is easy to learn were it not for all those Italian words (and the weird spelling), but then, both Lebanese Arabic and Maltese descend from Old Arabic.

tl;dr: It depends, on how closely related the languages are; but generally: mutually intelligible, not really; recognisably similar, yes, usually; easy to learn, relatively speaking, i. e., relative to non-Semitic languages, yes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Maltese

The word given for the Maltese for "father" is misleading. There are separate words for the speaker's father and the father of another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.163.152 (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are the terms of address or of reference? I.e., do you use diff words when saying "he is my father" and "he is their father"? — kwami (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Independent personal pronouns Table

The Arabic vernaculars column is inaccurate and unreliable. It needs to be rewritten by a native Arabic speaker. 2.91.40.115 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Near East vs. Middle East

In the lead, do you prefer Middle east or Near East? Personally I prefer Near East.. it's much more specific and concise. Ljgua124 (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

German speaker needed - Eichorn's explanation

In this 1795 article [5], Eichhorn, who is credited with popularising the usage of the term Semitic, summarizes the early debate around usage of the term:

Ist es nicht unschicklich semitische Sprachen für orientalische, ein semitischer Dialect statt eines orientalischen zu sagen? denn hebräische und canaanitische Sprache war doch eigentlich nur Eine Sprache; letztere könnte man eher die Chamische nennen, weil Canaan ein Sohn Chams war.
Ich kann nicht in Abrede seyn, daß ich, so viel ich weiß, der erste gewesen bin, der es gewagt hat, diejenigen Sprachen semitische zu nennen, welche bisher orientalische Sprachen bei den Schriftstellern hiessen. Diese Benennung hat so vielen Beyfall bei meinen Zeitgenossen gefunden, daß sie schnell in Deutschland in Umlauf gekommen ist. Nur eine einzige Stimme hat sich dagegen mit dem oben beigebrachten Einwurf erhoben. Es ist daher billig, daß ich die Ursachen des von mir eingeführten neuen Sprachgebrauchs am gebe, und den Grund anzeige, warum ich die ihm entgegengesetzte Einwendung nicht für treffend halte.
Orientalische Sprachen — ist ein unbequemer geographisch, unrichtiger, und den anderweit üblichen Sprachgebrauch widerspre, chender Ausdruck. Wo fängt der Orient an, und wo hört er auf? wer hat noch eine Linie gezogen, die ihn in festbestimmte Gränzen einschlosse? Wohnten alle die Stämme in der Levante, welche eine von den sogenannten morgenländischen Sprachen redeten? oder bliebe» sie immer im sogenannten Orient wohnen, wenn er auch eine Zeit lang ihr allgemeiner Ursick war? haben sie sich nicht im Fortgang der Zeit über Afrika und Europa, (wie die Araber nach Spanien, Portugall und Italien) verbreitet? Hat man die Sprachforscher getadelt, welche die Sprache der Slaven, einer Nation, die im Mittelalter ihren Wohn? sitz in einem großen Theil von Deutschland, in Italien, in Ungarn und weiterhin hatte, eine nordische Sprache nannten: warum sollte nicht ein ähnlicher Tadel die Sprachforscher treffen, welche die Sprachen der sogenannten orientalischen Stämme, die Anfangs nicht in der heutigen Levante wohnten, und nachher von dieser Gegend aus in die verschiedensten Gegenden, nach dem Süden, Norden und Westen, wanderten, mit dem Namen der orientalischen Sprachen belegten? Sollen die Sprachen aller der Völker, die uns im Osten wohnen, diesen Namen tragen, so ha, den auch die türkische, die persische, die sinesische und wie viele andre asiatische Sprachen weiter? ein volles Recht zu diesem Namen. Wie kommt es doch, daß man ihn blos auf den hebräischen, arabischen, aethiopischen, syrischen, chaldäischen, und samaritanischen Dialect einschränkt?
Alle diese Fragen fallen weg, so bald wir von semitischen Dialacten reden. In der mosaischen Völkertafel sind die erklärbaren Namen, welche als Semiten aufgeführt wer, den, gerade lauter Namen von solchen Stäm, men, welche die sogenannten morgenländische Sprachen reden, und in Vorder, Asien wohnen. So weit wir die Geschichte der, Silben rückwärts verfolgen können, sind sie immer entweder mit Sylben oder mit Buchstabenschrift (nie mit Hieroglyphen oder Bilderschrift) geschrieben worden: und die Sagen über die Erfindung der Sylben und Buchstabenschrift gehen auf die Semiten zurück. Hin, gegen alle hamitische Völkerstämme haben sich Anfangs der Hieroglyphen bedient, bis sie hie und da, entweder durch Umgang mit den Semiten, oder durch ihre Niederlassung unihnen mit ihrer Sylben oder Buchstabenschrift bekannt geworden, und sie zum Theil angenommen haben. Auch von dieser Seite, in Rücksicht des gebrauchten Alphabets, ist der Name semitischer Sprachen vollkommen passend.
"Aber die Cananiter, als Hamiten, haben ja hebräisch geredet"— Nicht ursprünglich, sondern erst seit ihrer Niederlassung unden Semiten, die um das mittelländische Meer und weiter landeinwärts wohnten. Sie zogen (wie noch Herodot erzählt) in kleinen Colonien vom rochen Meer ans mitteltündische herauf; und mußten sich natürlich, als die kleinere Zahl, zum besseren Verkehr nach der Sprache der grösseren Zahl der semitischen Landeseinwohner richten, wie auch der Fall bei den aegyptischen und asiatischen Colonien war, die sich einst in Griechenland nieder, liessen.

Google translates it as follows:

Is it not improper Semitic languages ​​for Oriental to say a Semitic dialect instead of an oriental? because Hebrew and canaanitische language was really only one language; the latter may be called the Chamische you rather because Canaan was a son of Ham.
I can not deny Being that I, as far as I know, have been the first who dared to call those languages ​​Semitic, which were called so far oriental languages ​​at the writers. This designation has found so many applause at my contemporaries that she has come quickly in Germany in circulation. Only a single vote has been raised against the above-inflicted ball in. It is therefore fair that I give to the causes of the I introduced new language usage on, and display the reason why I do not consider him the opposite objection appears accurate.
Oriental languages ​​- is an uncomfortable geographically, incorrect, and elsewhere common parlance resist-law, sponding expression. Where does the Orient, and where does it end? who has drawn a line einschlosse him down certain boundaries? Dwelt all the tribes in the Levant, who spoke an Oriental of the so-called languages? or would "always in the so-called Orient live, even though he was for a time their general Ursick? they have not spread in the course of time over Africa and Europe (as the Arabs into Spain, and Italy Portugall)? If one has blamed the linguist that the language of the Slavs, a nation in the Middle Ages their living? sitting in a great part of Germany, Italy, Hungary and continued to have, a Nordic language called: why should not a similar rebuke meet the linguist who did not live the languages ​​of the so-called oriental tribes that started out in today's Levante, and afterwards, moved from the area of ​​the various areas to the south, north and west, occupied with the name of the Oriental languages? If the languages ​​of all the peoples who live in the east end, bear this name, so ha that the Turkish, Persian, the sine forensic and how many other Asian languages ​​on? a full right to that name. How is it but that it merely restricts it to the Hebrew, Arabic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Chaldean, and Samaritan dialect?
All these questions fall away as soon as we talk of Semitic Dialacten. In the Mosaic table of nations are explainable name listed as Semites who, that, just louder names of such tribes away, men who speak the so-called Oriental Languages ​​and stay in front, which Asia. As far as we can trace the history of syllables backwards, they have always been (never with hieroglyphic writing or pictures) written with either syllables or letters Scripture and the legends about the invention of syllables and letters font go back to the Semites. Out against all Hamitic tribes have the beginning of the hieroglyphs operated until it here and there, either known unihnen by dealing with the Semites, or by their establishment with its syllables or letters font, and they have accepted in part. From this side, in consideration of the used alphabet, the name of Semitic languages ​​is entirely appropriate.
"But the Canaanites, as Hamites have indeed spoken Hebrew" - Not original, but only since their establishment reasons Semites who lived inland to the Mittelland sea and on. They moved (as yet Herodotus) in small colonies of sea skate to the mitteltündische up; and had, of course, than the smaller number, addressed to improve the traffic on the language of the larger number of Semitic inhabitants of the country, such as the case with the Egyptian and Asian colonies was that once established in Greece, allowed themselves..

Unfortunately the key paragraph doesn't make much sense per google's translation. Is anyone with better knowledge of German than me able to help? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Eichhorn is basically saying that the term "Oriental languages" is too ambiguous and that's why he proposes "Semitic languages" instead for the family. The paragraph in question can be translated as follows:

All these issues disappear as soon as we speak of Semitic dialects. In the Mosaic Table of Nations, those explicable names which are listed as Semites are exactly purely names of tribes who speak the so-called Oriental languages and live in Southwest Asia. As far as we can trace the history of syllables [or: the history of selfsame, i. e., these very languages, if "der, Silben" is a mistake for "derselben"] back in time, they have always been written with syllabograms [i. e., cuneiform signs] or with alphabetic script (never with hieroglyphs [i. e., logograms?] or pictography); and the legends about the invention of the syllabograms and alphabetic script go back to the Semites. In contrast, all Hamitic peoples originally used hieroglyphs, until they here and there, either through contact with the Semites, or through their settlement among them, became familiar with their syllabograms or alphabetic script, and partly adopted them. Viewed from this aspect too, with respect to the alphabet used, the name "Semitic languages" is completely appropriate.

The language is considerably old-fashioned, and some words are erroneously split apart (also, unihnen should be unter ihnen), that's why Google Translate can't handle the paragraph well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Florian. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. I had actually missed the link to the original text; I've checked it now. I was completely right that the text says derselben and not der Silben, and that unihnen is a mistake for unter ihnen. I understand you have trouble reading blackletter. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The page really Is outdated there are actually 595 million semitic speakers worldwide

This article needs to be updated which I have done theres a couple problems there are 29 million Amhara speakers and 420 million Arabic speakers native although its actually 450 million you have to exlude the 30 million non-native l2 speakers Hebrew is spoken by 7 million isralis worldwide not 5 million ill fix the errors.ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for these numbers? Please don't change the figures without providing a reference for them. Also, Oromo is Cushitic, not Semitic. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Numbers don't seem to match

If the total of speakers is 470 million and the most widely spoken languages are 300+22+7+5=334 million. That would mean 136 million users with languages of less then 5 million users each; this is hard to believe. Maybe different sources and/or different definitions used. ABMvandeBult (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Two years ago there was a constant push by people to inflate numbers, and I tried to resist it for some time. Then in August 2013 someone came up with a source from the Princeton University website which claimed the 470 million, and I guess no-one complained afterwards, although it seems as if that page was actually re-printing an older version of the Wikipedia page with inflated numbers. Just as now, the tally of individual languages given on the same page would not have even reached 300 million. In those days, however, this Wikipedia entry still adopted the 206 million for Arabic from Ethnologue, and since then a better number (300 million) came up from a very reliable different source. In any case, I'm not aware of any reliable source giving a good number for all the Semitic languages which we can cite, and we cannot just take the number we've had two years ago (270 million), as it is now clearly too low. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now changed the text to "more than 330 million", which is a conservative lower-end figure based on the number given on the major Semitic languages further down in the article. This simple arithmetic with a qualifying "more than" should be ok if put under NOR scrutiny. If not, please let's discuss here what to do instead. Of course I'm sure that the real number is higher, but would probably be not higher than 350 million. As long as we don't have a good source on any different figure, we should police the number we have in the text now, reverting anyone who inflates it again without using good sources, as will doubtlessly happen. Landroving Linguist (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why semitic languages are not related to any other language families.

The semitic languages are artifical. Not artifical in the sense of esperanto being belarussian grammar mated with spanish words, but artificial in being a result of careful design and implementation, before being gifted to the people who speak it. The triliteral root system means the entity who created the language (YHWH) built it on top the "platonic ideals" theory, except Platon wasn't yet born at the time. Every trilateral root conforms to one "platonic ideal" e.g. book -> read/write/learn. The platonic ideals we can only comprehend as much as shadowy reflections on a cave's wall, were (are) clearly laid out before his all-seeing eye.

This shows ur-semitic (the original form of arabic and hebrew) was not a result of natural evolution like PIE, but a carefully designed and implemented, ready-made gift bestowed from above on the carnivorous people of monotheism! Any later fractioning and splits are unfortunate results of corruption.

This realization also counters the theories promulgated by indo-aryan political supremacists, who want to posit sanskrit/PIE as the mother of all human languages and recently use it to push a poly-theistic, vegetarian agenda for hinduism, buddhism and germanic neo-paganism. 91.82.36.150 (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a fascinating perspective and I thank you for sharing it. Unfortunately, I don't see how this can improve our article. Robert the Broof (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Example for Roots with no Relation

Under: Common vocabulary

The Arabic ʿ-r-f root does relate to the Hebrew root ʿ-r-f which stands for back-of-neck and to-behead. In the past people in this Semitic region used to hold or scratch the back of their necks when trying to remember something. It is noted by Maimonides somewhere but I cannot remember where (*scratching the back of my neck*). Also, the Arabic ʿ-l-m root corresponds with the Hebrew root for World (Olam), Youth (Elem) as well as invisible (Ne'elam) all connected to knowlege or lack thereof. Regarding Amharic, the root ʿ-w-q has an equivalent in Hebrew for words that deal with mental burden. The root f-l-ṭ can also be found in Hebrew in words related to discharge of matter as well as information. (I am a native Hebew speaker and Arabic lit. Major).

Definition

This article does not define all its terms or link to definitions. There is a discussion on "reflex" of a consonant and Akkadian with no way for a reader to know what the technical term "reflex" means. Referring to a source is inadequate because hardly any readers have access to it. If there's a non-technical word for this, use it. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "reflex" is a pseudo-scientific term used in linguistics to mean "decendent" or "related sound".

Why no language family tree?

I was expecting a schema with a language tree, it displays clearly the info, could you add it?

Request for help at Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) Wikipedia

I wonder if someone here can give me a hand at Ladino Wikipedia. I am trying to merge two articles:

• lad:Semitiko
• lad:Linguas semetikas

The surviving article, wherever it actually lives, will clearly be based on the text of the first article. But what I could use help on over there is to classify the languages listed in the second of the articles within the sections of the first article. So if any experts out there can help me I'd greatly appreciate that. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) (administrator there) 15:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ethio-Semitic on historic maps

Two maps in this article purport to show the Semitic language area in the 1st century AD and 1000-2000 years ago. I don't know about other areas, but the extension of the Ethio-Semitic area seems to me to be overambitious. I don't think there is any evidence that in the 1st century AD Ethio-Semitic was spoken anywhere outside what is now Eritrea. The map shows Amharic (a language that is only attested since the 12th century) spoken way south of Lake T'ana, and linguists agree that this area was entirely occupied by speakers of Cushitic languages well into the second half of the 2nd millennium. Do others agree with me that these maps need to be adjusted? As a starter, I would take out any reference to Amharic, and then better reflect the situation of the 1st millennium by pushing the Semitic boundary to north of the Tekeze river. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

oh really, and what do you know about it? Do you fancy yourself some sort of expert on the topic? Can you read what Amharic books (you know the people who keep records) have to say on it, or even read one word of Amharic? Doubt it since their own books say different from your armchair p.o.v. 172.56.34.158 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Worku Nida: ጀብዱ። የጉራጌ ሕዝብ ታሪክና ባህል። Addis Ababa 1983 E.C., 1991 G.C. He states that the various theories on Gurage ethnogenesis place the migration of the Gurage ancestors from the North at the earliest in the 5th century, whereas the Gurage oral tradition actually actually has it happen at the time of Ahmed Gragn, in this case coming from the East in the late 16th century. All figured out from my arm-chair. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)