Talk:Meroitic language

NS meeting

The text sasy that a "recent" N-S meeting agreed that Meroitic is Nilo-Saharan. This calls for further documentation. Pete unseth (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, since the ref used was not published when that statement was made. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

May 25th Edit

Kwamikagami's edit, which was solely a removal of content, was based on the idea that "data from the 40s is completely out of date." Is that really true? It's an extinct language. Looking at the deleted content, I would be happy to see it re-organized and perhaps rephrased-- it's about the historical difficulty of identifying relations. Any other thoughts? Dan Cottrell (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Check the sources referred to in the deleted portion – they were only about the languages to compare, not about Meroitic. The whole thing was thinly veiled OR. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Kushite/ Meroitic and Afroasiatic (Updated Apr 20, 2018)

Kushite/ Meroitic: <l(a)ẖ(a)> "great, big, elder" — Afroasiatic: *l-ḫ “good” [G. Takacs] or *lVq̇- "to surpass": Egyptian: <3ḫ> [<3> ← */l/] "excellent, august, admirable, (be) effective, advantageous, beneficial, useful, helpful, profitable, successful, right" (OK, Wb I 13–14) (Gabor Takacs < FD 4) ||| Berber: *l-ɣ “to be good” [GT] ||| N-Omotic: *loq- "good" | S-Omotic: *laq- “good” ||| Cf. Semitic: Arabic: alḫa "grow high and luxuriantly", laḫt "big" (F. Steingass)

Afroasiatic: /q̇/ ← Berber: */ɣ/, Egyptian: /ḫ, ẖ/, Omotic: */ḳ/, Arabic:: /ḫ/. Nigh-invariably Kushite/ Meroitic: <ḫ(a)>, <ẖ(a)> ←→ Egyptian: /ḫ, ẖ/. Interestingly, Egyptian /g/, /ḳ/ consistently = Semitic /ɣ/ in roots containing Proto-Semitic */ɣ/.

Kushite/ Meroitic: <s(a)t(e)> "mother (or tutor)" — Egyptian: <z./s.t> "woman" ||| Cf. Arabic: sitt "lady" ||| Berber: *sit- "daughters" ||| Cushitic (East): Ts’amakko: šitt-e “girl” (G. Sava)

<z./s.t> ← Egyptian: <z/s> "man (of rank), some-/ any-/ no-one, person" + <.t> (feminine).

Kushite/ Meroitic: <(a)b(a)r(a)> "man" — Afroasiatic: *bar- "man"
Kushite/ Meroitic: <k(a)(n)di>/ <k(e)(n)ti> "woman" — Afroasiatic: *gVn- "woman; mother", *kVn- "co-wife, sister-in-law" + ?Afroasiatic: *t(V)-/-(V)t (feminine affix)

= base of <k(a)(n)d(a)ke>, <k(e)(n)t(a)ke>, "female ruler" and <k(a)(n)dit(e)> → <k(a)(n)dis(e)> "(royal) sister". Cf. Egyptian: <kntı͗ky>, Greek: κανδάκη, Latin: Candace, and Ge'ez: xan(ə)dākē. Hesychius transcribes Kushite/ Meroitic: <k(a)di> as κάνδη /kɒndɛː/ = Greek: γυνὴ "woman, lady, wife". Rilly adduces <k(a)(n)di>, <k(e)(n)ti> = Nobiin: kàrréé, karre "feminine, female" | Ken(u)z(i)-Dongola(wi): kari, kárri | Midob: árr (Nubian: */k-/ → Midob: ∅) || Nyima: Nyimang/ Ama: kér, kár, kɛ́r "female, woman" | Nyima: Afitti/ Dinik: kə̀rí "woman" || Nara: kede, kàdè "sister". Rilly transcribes <k(a)(n)di>, <k(e)(n)ti> as /kaɖi/, seemingly ignoring sound evidence of an unwritten, resyllabified /n/ in coda position.

1. */-nd-/, */-nt-/ → (/-d-/) → /-r-/ is unsupported in Nilo-Saharan (C. Ehret).
2. The Nara form = Kushite/ Meroitic only if an ‘*/-nd-/ → /-d-/ language’, like Nubian or Kunama, → Nara. No known Nubian or Kunama forms exist(ed).
3. Rilly adduces /ɖ/ (retroflex stop) for /d/ (coronal stop) in Kushite/ Meroitic. */-ɖ-/ → /-d͡ʒ-/ in Astaboran (C. Ehret). If genuinely Astaboran, then Rilly's /kaɖi/ → /kad͡ʒi/. /d͡ʒ/ = Kushite/ Meroitic: <t(a)> e.g. Egyptian: <Ḥr-nḏ-jt.f> → Greek: Harendotes ||| Kushite/ Meroitic: <Ar(e)(n)t(a/e)t(e)>.

Likely Astaboran: *kad(V) "woman, female": Nubian: *kar(r)V (Pre-Nubian: *d → r) || Nara: *kadV (*d → d/ V_) || Nyima: *kar (*d → r /_#). Cf., Astaboran: *kad(V) "woman, female" and Bantu: *-kádi "woman, female" (connection?).

Kushite/ Meroitic: <k(a)(n)dit(e)> → <k(a)(n)dis(e)> "(royal) sister". See Kushite/ Meroitic: <k(a)(n)di>, <k(e)(n)ti> "woman, female, lady". <k(a)(n)di> "woman, female, lady" + -<t(e)> → -<s(e)> (suffix — /t/ → /θ, s/ spirantization).

Rilly adduces Nubian: *kegi-di → (kegi "woman" + ti "child") somehow from Nubian: **kedi-di — **kari-di is expected (Pre-Nubian: */d/ → /r/ already). Rilly's *kegi-di → Dongola(wi): ɛ́ŋ-kɛgid [plural: ɛ́ŋ-kɛg-id-i] (C. H. Armbruster), ɛ:n-kɛg-id (C. Ehret), anaynkaygid (Taha A. Taha), Ken(u)z(i): -kegid (A. S. Abdel-Hafiz) "mother's sister" (maternal aunt) → ɛ:n, ɛ́n, anayn "mother" + kɛg, kayg, keg "sister" + id (noun suffix). Cf. Nobiin: kag "eldest son" (Farid M. A. Mekkawi). Rilly’s *kegidi is a plural form (keg [sister] -id [noun suffix] -i [plural suffix]) = “sisters”. Cf. C. Ehret’s etymology: Eastern Sudanic: *k^(h)ek^(h) “female relation”: Dongola(wi): -kɛg- "sister" | Ken(u)z(i): -keg- "sister" ||| Proto-Rub: *kek: Ik: ɕēk, ɕēkⁱ [B. Heine]; tʃɛk [T. B. Schrock]; cçēk [S. Wiedemann, P. Nannyombi] “wife woman”. Cf. Nobiin: kag "eldest son". Rilly further adduces Nara: **kàdè-tè = Nubian: **kedi-di ─ both unevidenced and untenable.

Kushite/ Meroitic: <m(a)t(e)>, <m(a)s(e)> "child, son" — Afroasiatic: *ma/i(t^y/č) "small boy": Semitic: *ma/iθ- "child, twin" ||| Egyptian: <ms> "child" ||| cf. Cushitic (East): Lowland: Dirasha: meet (R. Hayward), meetį (K. Wedekind) | Lowland: Bussa (North): méétʃa "child" (K. Wedekind), (West): méeta (Harlow) ||| cf. S-Omotic: Galila: mahti "child" (Alemayehu Abebe), maʜti (H. Fleming).

<m(a)t(e) → <m(a)s(e)> (/t/ → /θ, s/ spirantization). /t/ → /θ, s/ occurs in Beja, an ancient Kushite/ Meroitic neighbor. Kushite/ Meroitic: <yem(a)t(e)> "child, son" = Greek and Demotic equivalents in 5th century AD “feet graffiti”.

Kushite/ Meroitic: <at(a)> "bread" — Afroasiatic: *tiʔ- "bread": Egyptian: <t(3)> "bread". Cf. Egyptian: <ı͗d/ṭ3> "bread", <ı͗t> "barley, wheat, corn, grain", <htyw> "bread, cakes, pastries"

<w> (plural). The laryngeals /h, ḥ, ʔ, ʕ, ɣ/ → Kushite/ Meroitic: <a> based on Egyptian transcriptions.

Kushite/ Meroitic: <ḫ(a)r(e)> "meal"; <ḫ(a)r(a)> "to eat, to feed" — Egyptian: <ẖr.t> */çu'rit, ẖarít/ "food offerings, ration, due" → Coptic: hrε /hreʔ/ (A. Loprieno), hrε, hri (J. P. Allen) ||| Cf. Cushitic (Central): Khamtanga: χurə, χɨrə "meal, food" (T. Belay)

Kushite/ Meroitic: <yer(a)> /era, ira/ "milk" — Egyptian: <ı͗rṯ/tt>, <ı͗3tt> [*irtt] "milk, cream; milky (sap)", < hr> "to milk" → Coptic: e/arôt(e) "milk" ||| Ethio-Semitic (South): Amharic: are/ära "buttermilk or a kind of buttered milk; a mixture of whey or milk and water" ||| Cf. Cushitic (East): Lowland: Oromo: areera ||| Highland: *ʔarer- “whey” ||| cf. Afroasiatic: *ʔVr(a)r- "chest and belly, breast"

Kushite/ Meroitic: <w(a)l(e)> "dog" — Cf.

• Old Egyptian (*/l/ dialect): <wḥr(.t)> ← */waḥal/ (<r> ← */l/) “dog, hound” → Demotic: <whl(.w)> → Coptic: Fayyumic: (ouhol)
• Old Egyptian (*/r/ dialect): <wḥr(.t)> “dog, hound” → Demotic: <wḥ/hr(.t)> → Coptic: Bohairic: (ouhor)

<.t> feminine, <.w> plural. Either cognate or Egyptian: *<wḥl> /// Cushitic → Kushite/ Meroitic. /h, ḥ, ʔ, ʕ, ɣ/ → Kushite/ Meroitic: <a>. /h/ → ∅ in Nubian and most of Nilo-Saharan (C. Ehret). Egyptian <wḥr(.t)> = Berber: *-wVhar- “fox” (W. Vicychl) ||| Cushitic (East): *warh/hr(-ab-) “hyena” (A. Militarev)

Cushitic (East): Lowland: Arbore: wolá-te (feminine) ─ “Lycaon Pictus (African [Painted] Hunting or Wild Dog)” (R. Hayward) ||| Cushitic (East): Highland: Gedeo: wœl (Mukarovsky), wol-co pl. wor-sha (Gasparini), wol-t͡ʃo (Wolde), wal-co pl. war-sha (Hudson) “dog” | Highland: Alaba-Kʼabeena: wolanga (J. Crass), wolangaa (W. Leslau) (perhaps wol(a) + -([a]nga[a]) “jackal” ||| Cushitic (East): Ongota: wál-ta (feminine) “species of 'feline'; Johnston’s Genet; Broad-banded Mongoose” (H. C. Fleming) ||| Cf. Semitic: Arabic: وللس wallaas “wolf” (F. Steingass)

• (HEC →) Ethio-Semitic (North): Ge’ez: wālgā “kind of jackal” (W. Leslau) || (South): Amharic: wälg(e/a) “jackal” | (South): Gurage: Sǝ/ilt(’)i, Wolane: wälängäyä “fox, jackal”, Ǝndegegn: wäläng(e/iya), “fox, jackal” (W. Leslau)

Nubian: Dongola(wi): wɛ́/el | Ken(u)z(i): wel || Nyima-Afitti: wi/ə̀l “dog” ≠ Nubian: *bəl "dog" [G. Starostin]: Hill Nubian: *bol | Birgid: mɛl | Midob: pə̀ə̀l.

• Nubian: */b/ → Dongola(wi): /b-/, /-w-/. (C. Ehret)

• Nubian: */b-/ → Hill Nubian: */b-/, Midob: /p-/, and Birgid: /m-/. Nubian: */m-/ → Hill Nubian */b-/ also (V. Blažek).

Apparently, Cushitic terms → Nubian (P. Behrens [1981] and M. Bechaus-Gerst [2000]). Most likely, Cushitic → Ken(u)z(i)-Dongola(wi) and Nyima-Afitti. For Nubian: *bəl "dog" cf. Niger-Congo: #gbɛ̃lɛ̃ "dog" ~ Pepel: ɔ-bol ||| ‘Dongo-Ko: ɓélà ||| Baka bóló (R. Blench)

This example IS allowed on talk pages via rules according to WP:VERIFY, but NOT TO BE USED IN THE ARTICLE until it appears in the necessary reputable peer-reviewed journal according to WP rules. The original list is unchanged only the proposed cognates have been changed.

I used the Afroasiatic Etymology Database at starling.rinet.ru and and many, many papers by Afroasiatic experts/ specialists to find Afroasiatic likely cognates.

I think Meroitic has a significant inherited Afroasiatic vocabulary (based on the "securely" translated words given by Griffith and Rilly) and significant Egyptian borrowing. There is not a word in Rilly's list that does not have an extraordinarily plausible Afroasiatic cognate. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The "classification", if you want to call it that, is the only sound one. Rilly assigns invented meanings to words to make them look Sudanic. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kwami, okay, I may have misspoke on calling it a classification. I am sorry it has taken so long to respond...I have been very involved in researching this and I am nearly convinced Meroitic can be Afroasiatic. After going through Rilly's list, a massive portion of the words can have Afroasiatic roots...it is puzzling, I don't see how he could miss that. Some of the words are quite clearly Afroasiatic. I have amassed a list of possible Afroasiatic cognates to the words Rilly proposed. Of the 26 words proposed by Griffith to have a secure translation, 20 of them can easily be of Afroasiatic derivation. Some of Griffith's words might be bad translations. I have also noticed a great deal of possibly Afroasiatic words in the Sudanic languages, very especially, Eastern Sudanic which many authors acknowledge. The Nubian languages are riddled with Afroasiatic words also. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, teasing apart such contact effects can be nearly impossible with a limited corpus like this. The criticism I've heard of Rilly is that he fails to say that many of his glosses are his own, that they are apparently motivated to fit Sudanic, and that he presents the Sudanic connection as secure when it's tentative. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Clauderilly (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC) (Claude Rilly, Khartoum, 10 May 2013) As a scientist, I cannot leave these grave attacks without reply. I would suggest that those who suppose ("I've heard that") that I have been forging translations for some Meroitic words would refer to my actual publications. Not only the recent synthesis in English (Rilly & De Voogt 2012), which is a simplified handbook without "demonstrations", but first my recent book (in French, I know, but aren't you linguists?) which deals thoroughly with the matter of where does Meroitic belong: "Claude Rilly. Le meroitique et sa famille linguistique, Peeters, 2010". They would read at length in the 100 first pages how new translations of words have been worked out independently from any prejudice in favour of this or thst linguistic family. I am primarily a specialist of Meroitic (not an amateur classifier of languages!)and my aim is of course to understand the texts. Forging translations for Meroitic words would not be of course a good method for understanding the texts!Secondly, they would also read that the relation between Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic (Nilo-Saharan branch) isevidence not only in vocabulary but also in syntax and morphology. Third: of course, at a moment of my research, I contemplated the Afro-Asiatic option: this can be found in a specific chapter in Rilly 2007. I am an Egyptologist, I speak Arabic and so I had to explore the Afro-Asiatic hypothesis. But in spite of some loanwords, the results were desappointing. Rowan's arguments have been reviewed in Rilly 2010: 30-31. She relies on phonotacics and topological features, which cannot in any case tell us much about linguistic genealogy: Meroitic and Turkish for instance have many grammatical features in common, as they are both "agglutinative" languages. Clauderilly (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd need an independent review. The features are characteristically AA ones, not generic things like agglutination. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing is incorrectly done for Wikipedia. Wikipedia's classification relies on the consensus of historical linguistic thought for its classification scheme. Meroitic is most widely considered to be unclassified. There are suggestions that it might be Afro-Asiatic. There are an equal number of suggestions it might be Nilo-Saharan. But nothing definitive has ever been accepted by the linguistic community. Therefore, until the broader historical linguistic community comes to some more definitive consensus about the placement of Meroitic, it is POV to be coloring the template box anything other than "Isolate" (I don't recall if there is an "Unclassified" color). I have changed the template box to reflect the Isolate color and the indeterminacy of the two primary candidates for Meroitic's paternity. That is the proper neutral point of view on the issue. --Taivo (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article, its neutrality is problematic and seems to be rather anti-Rilly. It needs to be written to express a much more neutral viewpoint--describing both hypotheses without taking sides on either. Right now it sounds like, "Rilly thinks its X, but here's evidence against it." That's not WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any 2ary source that compares and evaluates them. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't have any neutral evaluation of the competing proposals, so it is best to be neutral here. I look through several classifications I've got (V&V (NS), Ruhlen (uncl), Klose (NS), Intl Ency Ling (NS)) and while most put Meroitic questionably in NS, Ruhlen (following Greenberg) leaves it as unclassified. --Taivo (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned about the "does not appear to be related to any existing language of Africa" quote, esp. as it's half a century old. It makes it sound like an isolate, and AFAIK no-one claims that. It's simply too sparsely attested to classify convincingly. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And the quote isn't from a half-century ago, only Greenberg's part of it. The quote is from 2002. I included it because GREENBERG said that it can't be classified. If Greenberg wasn't willing to put it somewhere..... --Taivo (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion guys! I wish I could join in but I don't know enough about linguistics to be of much use. Just thought I'd share some related genetic information that might perhaps provide further insight on the matter. Hisham Yousif Hassan Mohamed of Khartoum University in 2009 published the results of an NRY analysis that he had performed on some human remains from the Meroitic period in addition to a few other epochs. He was attempting to ascertain the paternal ancestry of these ancient Sudanese populations. The specimens were all found to belong to the haplogroups E and F, which are largely absent from present-day Nilotic populations. None belonged to the haplogroups A and B that are ubiquitous among Nilotic groups. Judging by this, at least as far as their male lineages are concerned, the Meroites would appear to have not been genetically closely related to the ancestors of modern Nilo-Saharan speakers. http://etd2.uofk.edu/documents/4312/uofk_etd-ID4312.en.pdf Hope this helps! 76.71.218.127 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And if you took genetic samples of the population of Chinatown in New York you'd find that none of them share genetic material with the English-speaking population of London either, but they still share a common language :). Genetic evidence can only offer, at best, corroborating evidence for something we already have solid linguistic evidence for. --Taivo (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, a lot has happened in my absence. First of all, I would like to apologize to you Mr. Rilly. I was not intending to insult you or your work (I used you as a reference on the Beja/ Bedauye People Talk page...someone please check it), however, I have read through your book and the lexical comparisons you give and rather frankly...virtually all of them have Afroasiatic equivalents (Christopher Ehret says, it should be spelled...Afroasiatic not Afro-Asiatic). I have, so far (still collecting and adjusting and will upload it for critique, review, and revision by you and others on Academia.edu when I have collected as much as I can), amassed a nearly 35 page word list of possible Afroasiatic cognates for the words you listed and the words Griffith listed even words suggested by the late Dr. Nicholas Millet. The only word for which there is NOT a possible Afroasiatic equivalent is Griffith's rendering, tɲyi "lion" , which, for all the world, looks like the words for "cow" in Nubian and other East Sudanic languages

Also Mr. Rilly, your reference is to Hintze's comparison of Meroitic to the Ural-Altaic languages (you chose Turkish) (Hintze,1974:76-78) in his critique of Trigger's methods. Dr. Kirsty Rowan states in her article, Meroitic – an Afroasiatic language?*, "...Hintze (1974) critically remarked on the associations drawn and the conclusion made in Trigger’s paper (1964). In summary Hintze’s remarks include the following points; (i) ‘the meaning of only a few Meroitic words is well enough established to be used as a basis for lexical comparison’ (1974:75). (ii) comparison with Nubian ‘is made even more difficult because of the known existence of Meroitic loan words in Nubian’ (1974:75). (iii) There are no established sound change rules to show regular equivalents in the different languages. (iv) The grammatical elements should be concentrated on more than lexical comparisons as these are ‘partially much better known than the meaning of words’ (1974:76). Finally, Hintze showed that by Trigger’s method, one could also erroneously propose that if Meroitic is a member of the Eastern Sudanic family and therefore related to Nubian, with more linguistic data it could be shown that Nubian, and subsequently Meroitic, is a member of the Ural-Altaic languages (1974:76-78).⁹

Hintze’s conclusion to his paper states that he is in doubt whether ‘a kind of comparative method, which compares isolated elements from different languages without considering their inner history, will help us very much in the better understanding of the Meroitic language and texts’ (1974:78)."

Notes to the above quote from Dr. Rowan's article:

⁹"Unfortunately, some scholars did not notice the point of Hintze’s (1974) comparison of Meroitic with Ural-Altaic languages to show that scanty data could be used to evidence erroneous proposals and saw this association as a valid line of research thereby proposals have been put forward that Meroitic is a Ural-Altaic language [Hummel 1992, 1993, 1995])"

Back to my point about Afroasiatic and Meroitic, for instance, Mr. Rilly, the interpretation of the hydronym Astaboras as "river of the Barya/ Barea (modern Nara)" does not fit with Pliny the Elder's etymology at all (also we have no idea of the ethnicity of the Megabaroi - suggested by some to be the Barya/ Barea (modern Nara) [Wikipedia - Atbarah river]). Hans Bernard states in his article, Sire, il n'y a pas de Blemmyes. A Re-Evaluation of Historical and Archaeological Data, "...It is remarkable that the son of the Blemmyan mentioned in PHauswaldt VI (no. 123) is identified as a Megabaroi in PHauswaldt XV. This may indicate that Blemmyes and Megabaroi were somehow connected or that it was possible to belong to more than one ethnic group at the same time...".

Pliny the Elder's etymology does fit extremely well with known Afroasiatic roots.

The rivers that go by the names Astapus and Astasobas can likewise be explained through Afroasiatic. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is all original research and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia to use. Please read WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:RS in order to understand why this material cannot be used or considered in the text of this article. --Taivo (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Shalom, Taivo! I think you misunderstood. I was not adducing that to be put in the article and, technically, ALL RESEARCH IS ORIGINAL :). I was using that as an example of how most toponyms and hydronyms in that region have an easily Afroasiatic origin, especially, since it is believed (by most, not all) that this region is, generally, the urheimat of Afroasiatic. So it stands to reason that most of the oldest toponyms and hydronyms would be Afroasiatic in origin. Most of the words that Mr. Rilly claim are evidence of Meroitic belonging to NE Sudanic are easily Afroasiatic and so Meroitic CAN be Afroasiatic also. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You still don't understand Wikipedia's policy on original research, A. Tamar Chabadi. That means that you should not be conducting your own research and publishing it here on Wikipedia. That means that you should not be synthesizing primary data and coming to conclusions here on Wikipedia. This thread has become your personal research page. Wikipedia does not offer you free web space to promote your theories and debate those whose own theories move in a different direction. This article's Talk Page is not the place to present primary data and debate competing syntheses of that data. This Talk Page is the place to discuss how to improve the article based on reliable sources, which your synthesis of primary data is not. If you want to keep this compilation of data, you have a day to move it somewhere else on the web. Otherwise it will be moved off this page. --Taivo (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Taivo. I will try to keep this civil and restrain my indignation at your..."accusations/ assertions"...as best I can in the following words to you. Let's begin...I was sharing information from reliable sources, not myself. I am not using this page for the publication of my research (which is vastly more extensive than anything you saw here). I was merely sharing what many authors have said themselves. I am not sure of your hostility concerning that sharing of other authors information. So the next time you have the feeling that I (or anyone else who shares information from other authors) am attempting to use Wikipedia for the purpose of posting research...ask yourself a question..."Are these sources posted reliable?", if so, then there is no issue as it is the mere sharing what other authors have said. You act as if I were editing the article with that information...I do not edit articles ever...I leave that for others...I merely share useful information to help the articles be their very best if possible. It is laudable that you have such high standards, but the feeling of the public and academia is much less enthusiastic about the validity of information on WP. I am trying to help with that by helping where I am good...collecting information and sharing it. I think I mentioned that I would be posting my research on Academia.edu and that is where it will eventually be anyway. I am well aware of Wikipedia's rules and am not fond of being lectured about things I already entirely aware of...I am a well-educated woman and can be conversed with in a non-condescending tone. I will not be lectured by the likes of you as if I were a child, understand that very well. If this were a phone call you would have heard a click (me ending the call). If we were face to face...some very perjorative words would have been unapologetically said to you. As I said, I will remove most of the information so as to be civil and respect Wikipedia, as for you...it is best to be silent rather than say something not very nice. I must say this experience has had a severe chilling effect and I will be extremely hesitant to share information from authors in the future, even the ones I have personal contact and communication with. Have a blessed day, Taivo :). A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We don't know if someone writing on this page knows the rules or not. This field attracts a lot of OR, much of it impassioned. Take the alleged Celtic affiliation of Tartessian, or any number of other proposals. Often the talk page is used to establish "truth", which the author then edit-wars to impose on the article. It can get rather tiresome. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kwami. Thank you and I understand. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://wysinger.homestead.com/file37822.pdf

  Triggered by \bwysinger\.homestead\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edward Lipinski's Review of Claude Rilly's, "Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique".

And by extension, Rilly's book, "The Meroitic Language and Writing System". I just found this review today.

In his review, Mr. Lipinski connects Meroitic to Afroasiatic and within Afroasiatic, very tentatively (with caveats), closest to South Ethio-Semitic, but defers until more can be known. He said that most of the vocabulary instead seems to be related to Afroasiatic. This is interesting because I pointed out the same things awhile ago, except that I would not dare classify it beyond Afroasiatic. Although I disagree with him on some points, the paper is a great contribution to Wikipedia's Meroitic language article. http://repozytorium.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/4031/No_2_2011.87-104.pdf?sequence=1

Mr. Lipinski states:

"Meroitic is attested by written records found in the Nile valley of northern Sudan and dating from the 3rd century B.C. through the 5th century A.D. They are inscribed in a particular script, either hieroglyphic or more often cursive, which has been deciphered, although our understanding of the language is very limited. Basing himself on about fifty words, the meaning of which is relatively well established, on a few morphological features and phonetic correspondences, Claude Rilly proposes to regard Meroitic as a North-Eastern Sudanic tongue of the Nilo-Saharan language family and to classify it in the same group as Nubian (Sudan), Nara (Eritrea), Taman (Chad), and Nyima (Sudan). The examination of the fifty words in question shows instead that most of them seem to belong to the Afro-Asiatic vocabulary, in particular Semitic, with some Egyptian loanwords and lexical Cushitic analogies. The limited lexical material at our disposal and the extremely poor knowledge of the verbal system prevent us from a more precise classification of Meroitic in the Afro-Asiatic phylum. In fact, the only system of classification of languages is the genealogical one, founded on the genetic and historical connection between languages as determined by phonological and morpho-syntactic correspondences, with confirmation, wherever possible, from history, archaeology, and kindred sciences."

In his conclusion he states:

"One could be tempted to regard Meroitic as a Semitic language, close to South-Ethiopic and influenced, as expected, by Cushitic, ancient Egyptian, and Coptic. However, the lack of verbal paradigms, very important in this question, does not allow us to follow this idea in the present state of our knowledge. The question should thus remain open.

Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique is an important work. It does not settle the question of the linguistic appurtenance of Meroitic, but it constitutes a major contribution to the study of Nilo-Saharan languages. As indicated on the back cover of the book, the Author deals at present with the spoken Nara and Nyima languages, a research which will certainly provide new insights." - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Glottolog website's assessment is given too much WP:Weight

Hi, it has come to my attention this article is giving to much weight to the glottolog website opinion about Riley's assessment of the Meroitic language. When I tried to undo the edit, I was responded with "sure it is" by the user Kwamikagami/kwami, which of course is not much of a proof. Please present reliable sources using the glottolog assessment as reference. DrLewisphd (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can add to Glottolog's criticism Edward Lipinski's critiques also, although, I respectfully, do not agree with a portion of his comparisons. Glottolog 2.2 is edited by Nordhoff, Sebastian & Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin, so one might try to contact one or all of them. I think one or more them has reviewed the work of Rilly. It is interesting that we have both, independently, found it to be massively methodologically flawed. I am currently working on what is known of the language lexically, morphologically, and phonemically. I will repeat what I said before, how can he have skipped over such obvious Afroasiatic comparisons? It boggles the mind. It is like he did not seriously even look at Afroasiatic at all. If it was easy for me to find obvious comparisons in Afroasiatic, how easy should it have been for him, a Ph.D? I will leave it by saying that Meroitic being cast as Nilo-Saharan/ Eastern Sudanic and beyond that related to Nubian is the result of perhaps unintentional or outright willful bias(es). Ms. Rowan speaks of this in her paper Meroitic – an Afroasiatic language?, in section 2 The classification of Meroitic, pages 3-6 http://www.soas.ac.uk/linguistics/research/workingpapers/volume-14/file37822.pdf. I do agree that kwami needs to do better than just, "sure it is". So, Kwami, if you can please try to do better than just "sure it is" (which I know you can). - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't spend much time on the Glottolog evaluation, we just state what it concludes. I don't think that's too much weight. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The other objection was that it's not a RS. Unfortunately, we don't have much in the way of peer review of Rilly, so we don't have a lot to choose from. Rowan is good, but she advocates a competing theory, which is not a recipe for objectivity. Glottolog (most likely Hammarström) has no ball in the game, so objectivity is not an issue. Hammarström has made evaluations of dozens of classifications that we cite here on WP, so as an author he's acceptable even though there is no detail at Glottolog. My reason for including G was that it is significant that we have agreement between a competing scholar who knows the unpublished material well, and an uninvolved scholar evaluating the published evidence and methodology as they have dozens of other proposals. The second suggests that the first isn't cherry-picking the evidence, or can't see the obvious due to being too close to their own ideas, or to professional jealousy, or to some other bias resulting from competition.

Note that G evaluated Rilly (2009) and Rowan (2006) when deciding the classification, and accepted the claims of neither. It took the time to point out flaws in Rilly, something it doesn't do unless they're pretty obvious (like classifying languages which don't actually exist). — kwami (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem pretty clear to me the Glottolog's website assessment on Rilly and Meroitic is given too much WP:Weight as it is referenced by no reliable sources. DrLewisphd (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a re-edit of the sentence is appropriate, kwami and DrLewisphd. Perhaps, the two of you would agree to the compromise. "However, there are too few words with known meanings for the comparison to be convincing, and Rilly's inferred readings are circular."...it can perhaps be amended to say, "According to a review by the editors of Glottolog 2.2, there are too few words with known meanings for the comparison to be convincing, and Rilly's inferred readings are circular."

Also, I think the fact that the editors of Glottolog 2.2 are in themselves 'degreed' linguists (I suppose. I know, at least, some are) and I know some of them have published works in reputable journals (they may all have published works) that would seem to qualify them as reliable sources.

Also, I got a different impression than you, Kwami, when reading the Glottolog 2.2 review. They mention nothing of Kirsty Rowan's work. They may have used her work as a reference, but they don't up or down her work. It is only Rilly's that they outright reject (speaks volumes). It seems they consider the subject to be an open question, but the lack of criticism towards Rowan speaks volumes to me also. The only criticism of Rowan's work that I have seen by various authors, is that it is typological (that is even the criticism leveled by E. Lipinski in his article above), but if that is the worst that can be leveled at it...it is rather weak as a critique. Her work is on the right track, it seems, by the rather weak critique's of it. I have seen far worse criticism leveled at Rilly's work, the Glottolog 2.2 review included. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, wording like that would be fine. As for Rowan, true, they didn't feel the need to point out any deficiencies, but they didn't accept it either, perhaps because they don't accept typological arguments. That's not a criticism, just acknowledgement that the data is insufficient for classification. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. I don't think the Glottolog website opinion on meroitic and on Rilly's assessment on meroitic should be used at all. No other academic source beside Wikipedia use the glottolog website as reference and source material on Meroitic (or at all frankly). I think the glottolog reference as well as their opinion on Rilly's assessment on meroitic should be removed completely. Wikipedia is the only place using glottolog as a source material on meroitic. The glottolog website is not reliable source on the Meroitic language. DrLewisphd (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking you repeatedly to "Please present reliable sources using the glottolog assessment as reference" on this subject. DrLewisphd (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DrLewisphd, in doing a cursory search on Google, it presents a number of written academic articles that cite Glottolog. The editors of Glottolog are reliable sources individually and taken together. I do not see the conflict here. A compromise has been sought, but you are not willing. This will only be resolved by a mutually agreed upon compromise. As long as you try to edit the article to remove the comment, Kwami will put the comment back. So you need to think of compromise that the both of you can be satisfied with. Again, I have to agree with Kwami here. The editors of Glottolog are reliable sources, so it is not understood why you protest so strongly. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please present here citations of those reliable sources using the glottolog website assessment as reference on this subject. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Posted on noticeboard

See WP:RSN#Is the Glottolog website a reliable source on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic?. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Slight Edit

I added those few words to the line concerning Glottolog, kwami, since you said that would be okay with you. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The recent edit...

The paragraphs are fair, but the last sentence is problematic. Problematic because of the wording and where it should belong. It is removed until the errors are fixed.

The problematic sentence...

Finally, Meroë was conquered by a Beja dynasty in the 1st century AD and the later cursive Meroitic script may represent a Nubian-Beja creole.

Firstly, the Beja (actually their ancestors, the Blemmyes) came into control of part of the Nile Valley around Kalabsha only after the fall of Meroe...which was in the 4th Century CE, ~350 CE to be more specific.

Secondly, after the above is corrected, this sentence seems to me to belong under the Meroitic Script page. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Kushite"

1. Kushite is a toponym not an ethnic name or language name. Latin isn't called Roman.
2. Nobody in the literature calls the language "Kushite".

I'm going to revert these series of edits. -- Lestadii27 (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are not fully aware of a topic, it is best to leave it to those of us who are very familiar with it. Your edits were reverted. Do not destroy this page again or you will be reported to the admins. Further, any serious effort on your part would have revealed that it is called "Kushite" in several places in legitimate literature. Furthermore, Kushite is derived from the autonym, now, placed back in the page you destroyed/ vandalized. The language was spoken well before Meroe was the royal capital, so it is appropriate to call it "Kushite", which encompasses all periods of the language's and civilization's/ culture's existence, rather than "Meroitic" which refers to a specific era (the last era after Kerma(n) and Napata(n) respectively) and location. By your logic, Meroitic cannot be used either because it is derived of a toponym. Think before you do or say things. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, the language is only known by Meroitic in the literature. We don't actually know what the Kushites called their language. I am not applying "my logic" and I am not dealing with what you find appropriate, I am merely pointing to the view of Meroiticists. Kush is identified with Meroitic "qos" () and while it may prove to be an autonym, it is not attested as one but rather as a toponym. Publish in a reputable source and then you can apply your idiosyncratic terminology all you like. Wikipedia is not the place. -- Lestadii27 (talk)

Lestadii27, it is known by both terms in all literature. Kushite is the general term for the people, the whole span of their civilization, their material culture, and language.

Here are some salient points and questions for you to address that you have not:

1. Meroitic does (as a fact) specifically refer to a period in which the Kushite language was spoken (we know this and have known this for many decades now).
2. Kushite was spoken in more than Meroe and was spoken during periods rather long before Meroe rose in importance. Was the Kushite language to be called ‘Meroitic’ during those periods? If, yes, explain why. If, no, what exactly is your contestation concerning ‘Kushite’ here?
3. 'Kushite' is used in conjunction with other terms in literature i.e. the Kushite Kingdom, Kushite kings, Kushite queens, Kushite pharaoh, Kushite names, Kushite territory, Kushite era (of Egypt), Kushite rule, Kushite Empire, Kushite history, Kushite state, Kushite capital, Kushite religion, Kushite gods, and on and on it goes. Logically, if all of those things are called 'Kushite', why would the language not be 'Kushite'? It is neither “idiosyncratic” nor “my original research.” Literature going back more than 100 years uses "the Kushite language" as a reference to the LANGUAGE OF THE KUSHITES. See below for attestations of Kush…
4. The attestations of "Kush" are as follows:

• k3z, k3s - Middle Kingdom’s 12th Dynasty pharaoh Senusret I/ Sesostris I (1962 1928 BC) (refers to a small political and territorial entity south of Egypt).
• k3ʃı͗, kʃı͗ - later Middle Kingdom (includes area of Kerma Culture south of Sai island).
• kʃ - Second Intermediate Period (refers to both Lower and Upper Nubia).
• kʃ - New Kingdom (refers to the Egyptian occuped area from the 1st cataract to the Napata region).
• ı͗kʃ - under Kushite qore (king/ ruler) Aspelta, 6th to 4th Century BC Egyptian documents from Kush (Nubia).
• I͗kʃ, kʃ - 2nd and 3rd Century AD Demotic graffiti at Philae.
• εϭωϣ (e/ik^yo:ʃ, e/itʃo:ʃ) – Coptic Era.
• qes (qes[a]) and the less frequent qesw (qes[a]w[a], qesu) and qos (qus[a]) - Kushite language of the Meroitic period.
• Biblical/ Hebraic: kuʃ; Babylonian: kaʃi, ka-si/ʃi, ka-a-ʃa; Assyrian: ku(-u)-si/ʃi; Old Persian: kuʃiya; Greek: Kous; and Old Nubian: Kas.
• Kashta k3ʃ-t3 or k3ʃt^y from Kushite: qes (qes[a]) 'Kush' - technically the first Kushite qore of Egypt's 25th Dynasty. ^{See this reference also}
• k3ʃ 'Kush' – as a reference to the ancestral kingdom of the qore Piye who is traditionally attributed as the first qore of the 25th dynasty.
• “the mistress of Kush” – a reference to the queen mothers of several rulers (see reference 4).
• “Kings of Kush”…“crowns of the kings of Kush”… prays that Amana/ Amun “may put love in Kush”…and that in his service was a “chief scribe of Kush”– all references by qore Aspelta to his ancestors among other things and people. (see reference 4)
• k3ʃı͗ı͗/y nt^yrı͗ı͗/y-Χpr 'The Kushite whose coming into being is divine' - the Horus name of the late 3rd or early 2nd Century BC qore Arqamani (see reference 4).

5. You also have to ask why the moderators/ admins have never reverted/ disputed my edits (yes, they have seen my edits)...they left the article fairly as I edited it. They found my edits unproblematic. Again, no one, except you, disputes the cited facts of my edit, Lestaddi27.
6. As for misnamed entities, this sort of thing happens frequently for one reason or another. This is the same situation as encountered with "Tocharian" and is discussed in that article. The same applies to the term “Nubia(n[s])”. The actual Nubians are a later group of people who spoke a language not satisfactorily connected to Kushite and were possessed of a totally different culture. So again, pointing out the misnomer is accurate and not original research.
   
7. To be honest, all the articles concerning Kush need to be rewritten and connected in the proper ways.
8. I am currently working on an article for publication concerning a Kushite word from the basic lexicon (the most stable words of a language not liable to change over time or be adopted from another source) and its possible direct connections to a very closely related group of Afroasiatic proto-forms.

A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you may be onto something. -- Lestadii27 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What are you referencing? A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Looks like I walked into a minefield. I made changes similar to those of Lestadii27 in February, & then came here to post my explanations. I hadn't realised the topic had been so hotly contested. Here's my argument:

1. kꜣš is definitely not an autonym: It's Egyptian.
2. It's possible that qes is an autonym, but we actually only know it as a toponym. It's identified explicitly as a toponym in Rowan's thesis (pp 141 & 221); Török's Handbook of Napatan-Meroitic Civilization has a discussion of this matter on p 39: He holds qes to be a toponym, & states explicitly that no ethnonym used by Kushites themselves can, as yet, be determined.
3. I think it's hard to claim that the terms "Kushite" & "Meroitic" are used equally in the literature… The major academic community effort to decipher the language was the Meroitic Newsletter/Bulletin d'Informations Méroïtiques. The collection of published texts is the Répertoire d'épigraphie méroïtique. The major post-REM series of texts is Meroitic Texts from Qasr Ibrim. The only publications I know of from this century are Rowan's thesis & Rilly's books, all of which explicitly opt for "Meroitic." Going back a century to the original books in which Griffith deciphered the writing system (at least to a degree), the name chosen is "Meroitic." Derek Welsby & László Török, tho writing about the civilisation more broadly rather than the language itself, also use the terminology in this way.
4. Looking at Google Scholar, there are only eight hits for "Kushite language," a couple of which are actually meant to indicate the Cushitic languages (eg, "Beja is a Kushite language"), & at least one of which is saying "Meroitic is the name used for the Kushite language." "Meroitic language", on the other hand, returns a couple hundred hits.
5. I actually can't find a single monograph or article from a peer-reviewed source from this century that prefers the term "Kushite".

I wouldn't object to a scholar's referring to the language as "Kushite" in independent publication, but I think there's a pretty solid scholarly consensus on nomenclature. It seems odd to tell Wikipedia's readership that something else is "more proper". Pathawi (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Simple way to tell if a thing is Egyptian... What does it mean in Egyptian? If it is Egyptian, it has a fairly straightforward Egyptian meaning. If it lacks that...foreign word. This meets the latter criterion. It lacks any meaning in Egyptian, therefore, it is a Kushite word. Kushite because clearly that is where it came from since that is the area it specifically references. If you want to say it is Egyptian... you now have to prove that and your feelings are not proof. Why would the Kushites refer to their land as Qusa/ Qesa(wa)? Why would they adopt a foreign, meaningless word in Egyptian for their own territory?

Further, your modern, independent source is right here..."Certainly by the early 3rd century bce a writing system was developed for the Kushite language." also here "In the introduction the author explains the subject of his book and the terms he uses. He does not accept the division of the Kushite history into two phases, the Napatan and the Meroitic; he sees the history of Kush as a continuum. When used in this book, the term Meroitic refers to the Kushite language." and here , and here too . There are other 1970's - 90's and 2000's mentions of it on Google Books. One will also notice that the term "Nubian" is frequently used to refer to the Kushite language rather than the Nilo-Saharan language group of the same name. Further, the language is called "Meroitic" because that is where it was initially discovered (it stuck). It is, now, known to have existed well-beyond Meroe and well-before Meroe rose to prominence. One also has to keep in mind, that Kush is called "Nubia" despite the word not even being present in Pharonic Egyptian. "Nubian" first appears during the Ptolemaic Era mentioned by Eratosthenes. The Kushites also knew the word, but it did not refer to them, the Kushites, it referred to the Nuba aka the ancesteal Old Nubian speakers of Nilo-Saharan stock. A further example is the term "Aethiopia"... That is not a reference to the modern state, but to Kush (well north of the modern state and entirely a different people, language, and culture). The messed up nomenclature(s) is one reason why so much confusion abounds. So... Just because a term is widely used for convenience, does not make it proper or correct and neither does it mean that it cannot be eventually corrected or remedied. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to pursue this, but having difficulty with your sources. I guess I'll go point by point sequentially:

1. If it doesn't mean something in Egyptian, it's not Egyptian: Well, what does 'spanish' mean in English, or 'chinese'? Nothing. And yet these quite certainly are English demonyms/language names: They are distinct from español & 中文. Similarly, kꜣš is just definitely not a Meroitic word, tho it may be borrowed from Meroitic. qes is (most probably) a Meroitic word. If one wanted to make the argument you're trying to make, I think it would need to be based on qes rather than kꜣš. Does that make sense? It's not a matter of qes being borrowed from kꜣš—the argument that I think you're making, that it was the reverse, seems most likely to me. But that doesn't make kꜣš Meroitic any more than the word 'French' is French.
2. But this returns us to the problem that qes is so far only attested as a toponym, not a demonym or a language name. It is quite possible that it was a component in the name that the Kushites used for their language, but we don't know that. I don't think I've seen any decent evidence for that. Have you?
3. I'm having difficulty following your citations. Notes:
   1. The first is to an article by Derek Welsby in the Wiley Online Encyclopedia of Empire. Unfortunately, I don't have institutional access. The PDF itself costs US$38, which is not within my budget.
   2. The second and third are identical, and link to a Google Scholar search. It returns 1,640 results, but because the search doesn't actually link the two terms "Kushite" & "language", few of these are even relevant. For example: On the first page, two results uses "Kushite" to mean "Cushitic"; five are talking about the relevant Kushites, & mention languages but don't refer to Meroitic as "Kushite"; two are the Welsby sources linked in other of your footnotes; one is a confusing article citation from Ernst Zyhlarz. Zyhlarz, actually, isn't a great source for your argument, as he actually argues that the name kꜣš is an Egyptian word: kꜣ štꜣ—the ka is secret! In any case, I looked up the article, & the citation as provided in Google Scholar doesn't exist. (Google Scholar is just reproducing a faulty citation in someone else's paper.) In other papers that one can find via JSTOR, Zyhlarz refers to the language as 'Meroitisch'. I did find another paper of his from 1960 that refers to it as the 'kaschitische Sprache', but it's not clear that he's using that as the name of the language, rather than as an identifier. On the second page of search results, none of the linked articles refer to a "Kushite language", & several call the language Meroitic. Regardless, I don't think that a Google Search result is acceptable positive evidence. Especially as the only thing that's actually turned up is what appears in your other two sources: The Welsby article & book. Is this url a mistake? Was it meant to link to one of the specific results from that search?
   3. The fourth is Derek Welsby's The Kingdom of Kush. A Google Books search turns up one location in that book where Welsby refers to "the Kushite language". Welsby's book doesn't support your argument: He's using 'Kushite language' as an identifier, rather than a name, on p 189. In the Introduction, he states that he'll refer to the language as 'Meroitic'. Throughout section in which the phrase 'Kushite language' appears (pp 189–190), he refers to the language as Meroitic. He uses Kushite as an ethnonym, so, for example, p 190: 'A study of early Kushite names suggests that they are "Meroitic" names. Kashta (or more properly Kushto) in Meroitic means "the Kushite"…' Do you have the book on hand? Can you provide a counterexample where he clearly refers to the language itself as named 'Kushite'?
4. I'm going to skip over Nubia & Æthiopia because I agree with you: I don't think we have any debate there.
5. If the usage is wrong/improper, we can fix it: Actually, I think we can't. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research or argument. I still don't see any monograph or article from a peer-reviewed journal by a researcher working directly on the language of Kush itself that refers to it as 'Kushite' rather than 'Meroitic'. (Google Books returns no such results for the 21st century. Extending the search back to 1980, there are two supporting uses, but neither is from a researcher who's worked on Kush.) Again, the sources of cited above are really central for the field: Rowan's & Rilly's publications (I think the only academic publications on the language itself from the 21st century), REM & the Qasr Ibrim volumes (the standard scholarly editions of the texts), & the Meroitic Newsletter (the bulletin for scholars working on the language). This seems to me to be a pretty clear scholarly consensus. Your ultimate argument for what the language ought to be called may well be right, but that argument has to be made outside of Wikipedia. Right? Pathawi (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Pathawi! Yes, unfortunately, I seem to have gotten my links crossed up. I was using my phablet to respond this morning. I fixed the links. Further, here is Rilly linking the Meroitic people to the ethnonym "Koush" for which he says is proven (p.37), "En fait, si notre hypothèse concernant l'équivalence du peuple de langue méroïtique avec l'ethnonyme « Koush » est avérée, c'est plus au nord encore, entre la deuxième cataracte et l'île de Saï 3, qu'on pourrait envisager de situer le berceau de cette population." Rilly also uses the phrase "langue de Koush" a few times - functionally equivalent to "Kushite language". Again, in 2010, he states, "Vers 2000 av. J.-C., la montée en puissance du royaume de Kerma, le premier État historiquement connu d’Afrique noire, fondé au sud de la 3e cataracte cinq siècles plus tôt, stoppa l’avance égyptienne et contraignit les rois de la xiie dynastie à ériger un dispositif de forteresses entre la 1e et la 2e cataracte pour se protéger des incursions kermaïtes. Un nom apparaît alors dans les textes égyptiens pour désigner ce nouvel ennemi : Koush (ég. Kȝš), sans doute l’appellation que se donnaient les Kermaïtes eux-mêmes, et qui continuera à les désigner jusqu’à la disparition de la langue égyptienne." This confirms some things for you then... More links here , , this one is outdatedly inaccurate, but..., , , "Since the Kushite language was not written down until much later, archaeologists must rely on physical evidence for clues to the religious beliefs of Nubia. Graves, which were hollow pits surmounted by a tumulus, or mound of earth, were filled ...", "... les Tutsi au Rwanda et les Hima en Ouganda, sont sans doute apparentés aux peuples sémitiques de langue koushitique (voir royaume de Koush). Ils adoptent les langues de leurs sujets, ainsi que certaines institutions..."

1. Secondly, I do not involve myself with fringe theories, hence, why I stay clear of "sources" like Clyde Winters and the like. Zylarz is not a source I use, though, I have seen his work and some of it is salvageable. I cite Rilly and Rowan a great deal too. Some Rilly's work is invaluable in the understanding of the language and his contributions are undeniable, however, his methodology is based on intensive jiggery-pokery with the phonology of the language (which other reputable linguists besides me has seen). He says that there are no matches in Afroasiatic to Kushite words of definitively established meaning...you see it above where he responded to our conversation some years ago. He is utterly and bafflingly just wrong on that. I have never fully understood how he missed all that. I am an "amateur" in this, a student of linguistics and language who has developed an immense passion about the Kushite language...if I can find these cognates, I know he could with his resources which are far greater than mine. I can attest to the fact that he barely skimmed Afroasiatic...see my comparisons above. The list of cognates shared with Afroasiatic extends even into the basic lexicon. Some words are easily seen as Egyptian...some words are more difficult to tell...see Kushite: <wle> "dog" above and also Kushite: <nob> "Nubian" may either be Egyptian or cognate to it and, no, Egyptian: <nbw> "gold" has absolutely no relation at all. Egyptian: <nbw> "gold" is a folk etymology. Further, I have even worked out phonological comparison charts based on Egyptian phonemic correspondences with Kushite and vice versa for virtually all the major branches (and many of the daughter languages) of Afroasiatic. When I make comparisons they must follow the strict sound/ phonological correspondences associated with both Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan...you can see that above too. Anyway...this language is a great passion of mine. I take this quite, quite seriously (not a superficial thing for me at all). Like I said, I am working on some legitimate etymological, comparative papers that I hope to soon try to get published. I felt I needed to explain all that to you.
2. Now, on to Egyptian phonology and <k3s/ʃ>. Egyptian script was a consonantal one, and, sometimes, written syllabically when dealing with foreign words. Egyptian used these 5 consonants as semi-vowels: <3> (glottal stop - aleph), <w> (voiced labio-velar), <ı͗> (yod - also a glottal stop), <ı͗ı͗> (y - glide), and <'> (ayin - voiced pharyngeal fricative). The 2 Kushite scripts differed in that they had vowels and were alphasyllabic. It is common in Egyptian - Kushite phonemic correspondences, for Egyptian: <3> to correspond to Kushite: <a>, <e>, or <o> /u/. So, no, <k3s/ʃ> is not Egyptian per se, but the Egyptian transciption of Kushite: <qes(w)> (q/k^wesa[wa] — q/k^wesu), <qos> (q/k^wusa). Phonologically, the word can be proven to be Kushite because of well-established correspondences between Egyptian and Kushite phonemes. So, yes, the word is still Kushite - just transcribed in Egyptian. In English, we do the same thing with many foreign words, we write them with the Latin alphabet rather than their native script (if they have one). That does not make those words any less foreign nor anymore native to English. Do you get that? Also your examples about Spanish and Chinese...are these words etymologically inherited from PIE? No...China is derived from the Chin Dynasty. <qin/ ch'in> "relative" = Chinese word. Spanish/ Español ← Spain/ España ← Spania "land of rabbits"? - Phoenician/ Punic (Semitic)?. Further, "any more than the word 'French' is French"...this argument is destroyed.
3. There was a pretty clear consensus on Tocharian too.
4. About toponyms as names for languages...really? You don't see where you are wrong here? Hello, EGYPTIAN? "Meroitic" is derived from a TOPONYM, Meroë (Kushite: <m/berowe>). The language, Hindi, is ultimately named after a river (hydronym), the Indus. The Indus river is also the ultimate source of the words "Hindu" and "India".
5. Yes, I have a rather extensive database (around 16GB) of books and papers concerning Egypt and Kush alone. This includes Derek Welsby's book.

I hope this helps. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I very much forward to seeing the papers you're working on. To be clear: My position on the matter is similar to yours. I am unconvinced by Rilly's work. But I don't think that's at question with this particular issue.
2. I find the question of whether or not kꜣš is an Egyptian word to really be a surprising one. Most (not all) of English's language names are borrowed from autonyms, but go through changes to reflect English phonology & derivational morphology. Arabic comes from ʕarabi, for example. We drop the /ʕ/ because no comparable phoneme exists in English, add derivational '-ic', & adjust the vowels & /r/ toward near(-ish) English equivalents. /ˈæɹəbɪk/ is not an Arabic word. But it comes from an Arabic root. Meroitic has phonemes (or at least appears to, from the orthography) that get transcribed [k] and [q]. Meroitic [q] corresponds with both Egyptian [q] & Egyptian [k]. You probably know Rilly's & Rowan's theories for this alternation, but by either of these interpretations, Egyptian [k] represents an accommodation of a Meroitic term to Egyptian phonology. The ultimate etymology of a word doesn't determine its language in use. 'Democracy' is not a Greek word. Can I also say that I'm perplexed as to why this debate even matters: The claim that you want to make, I think could be made in a stronger way by linking 'Kushite' to attested qes. Why not use that, rather than the Egyptian middle man?
3. This is also nitpicky & not central to our discussion, but: I don't think it's fair to consider poor Ernst fringe. His work was reviewed and used by many scholars working on Meroitic in his day. The fact that you & I & many others consider him largely wrong doesn't make him fringe. Errors & missteps are part of scholarship—as, hopefully, is their challenge & correction. In any case, we're agreed that he's not useful for the nomenclatural debate. (& what does Clyde Winters have to do with anything?)
4. I don't follow you at all re Spanish & Chinese. Our terms are derived from autonyms, but are not the autonyms themselves. The fact that they are not of Germanic origin is the first half of my point. The second, which I think you might be missing, is that this fact doesn't make them terms in their language of origin: diachronic provenience is not synchronic identity. The argument isn't "destroyed". (What is this, a video game?) I'm not sure it's even addressed.
5. What does Tocharian have to do with anything?
6. I don't see that I'm wrong re toponyms. Many language names are related to toponyms, but that's not a transhistorical rule. We can't determine from a toponym the name of the language of the people occupying that place, nor are all language names derived from some prior toponym. It is plausible that the Meroitic term corresponding to 'Meroitic language' or 'Kushite language' relates to a toponym, but it is not necessarily so. Just to look at the region: Several language names are related to toponyms: Fòòr for Dār Fūr, ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ for ⲕⲏⲙⲉ 'Egypt'. But for others that's not at all clear: Bidhaawyeet (Beja) is not related to any clear toponym; Gəʕəz does not appear to derive from a toponym. & even when a language name is reflective of a toponym, that need not match a state name: There was, for example, no state named anything like 'Nubia'. Elsewhere: Diné bizaad (Navajo) means 'people's language'. Phāsā̌ Thai (Thai) derives from 'language' (ultimately borrowed from Pali) & a Tai word meaning 'free'. It is entirely plausible that the indigenous name for the Meroitic language reflected the toponym qes/kꜣš, & if that is demonstrated it shouldn't surprise anyone. But we can't project that that is the case.
7. But all of this seems secondary to the substantive matter: First, regarding Rilly. «Langue de Koush» certainly could be translated as 'Kushite language', but it could also be translated as 'language of Kush', just as Spanish is the language of the Dominican Republic. But clearly Rilly has shown a preference for the name Meroitic thruout his writing. I don't think that this is at all an argument against the weak form of the sentence that I provided, which allowed that 'Kushite' could also be used.
8. Secondly, Wikipedia just isn't the forum for making the claim that the predominant scholarly usage is incorrect or improper. A published claim to that effect can be cited, but the claim can't originate here. I don't see this point addressed at all in your response, & it's really the core of my objection to the previous version of the first sentence of this article.

I see that you have since modified that first sentence; I have no objection to this version of the first sentence. I'm going to make a couple of changes to the subsequent sentences to be a little more conservative, but I hope they won't be detrimental to your interests in this matter. Pathawi (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Pathawi! Thanks for the discussion on this...great to have someone to talk to about it that fairly understands it. Again, thank you! Yes, I should have mentioned that I am somewhat under the mentorship of a post-doctoral linguist as well. He has been integral to my work. Will always be indebted to him for all his help and patience. I want to make him proud with my work on this language.

1. Now, for your first points...the Egyptian attestation of <k3s/š> is older than the forms from the Meroitic period by the order of 1700 years. Keep in mind that the Egyptians and Kushites have been neighbors since the time of the A-Group Culture. Yes, I believe the Kushites have their genesis in that culture and possibly some older ones. I also believe that the C-Group is not a different culture, but the cultural evolution of the A-Group brought about by military and trade contacts. You have to understand, that Kushite words, phrases, and names appear sporadically throughout the corpus of the Egyptian language from the Middle Kingdom → end of the Kushite Kingdom. Kushite words are present in the Old Nubian language as well. The Kushite word for "sun/ sun god", <m(a)s(a)>, was adopted into Old Nubian (maša-l-) with it's Kushite determinant <-l(a)> and passed to other Nubian languages from there. It is also seen in Egyptian. The Kushite word for "water" may be seen during the Old Kingdom in the Pyramid Texts...working on that. Anyway...we go with the Egyptian word because it is where the earliest attestations of transcribed Kushite words are found. The Kushite language was written before the Meroitic period, just in Egyptian script.
2. The word Arab is generally Semitic in origin (the word is not specifically Arabic), but it is unknown from what 'root' the word derives. So your point about Arabic is lost on me here.
3. Kushite: <k(a)>, <q(a)> ←→ Egyptian: /k/, /q/, and /g/. See Kushite: <N(a)t(a)k(a)-am(a)ni> → Egyptian: <Ntk- ͗Imn>, <Ntg- ͗Imn>, <Ntḏ- ͗Imn> (<ḏ> can = */gi/, */gu/).
4. I don't consider Zylarz 'fringe', just his work is mostly incorrect and useless. Further, omg, Clyde Winters...I have had my encounters with him on Dienekes' Anthro Blog some years ago (that was before I knew better). The guy is completely unreasonable. Anyway...
5. About Spanish and Chinese...technically, neither word is English (or IE), though, they have been adopted into English. Let me give you an example of something: Ancient Greek is ~60% non-IE...the Greeks adopted words from the very advanced culture it encountered when it journeyed into what we now call 'Greece'. Ancient Greek so thoroughly adopted these words and the words were already so fairly adaptable to Greek phonology that the words looked and functioned like actual, natural Greek words. This made it difficult, in some ways, to tell some of them apart from actual ancient Greek IE words. The words are not ancient Greek, they are non-IE no matter matter how thoroughly ancient Greek had assimilated them. This is my point. It does not matter how thoroughly a word is assimilated into an adoptive language, the word is still foreign. <k3s/š> is Kushite, but written in Egyptian. It does not matter what derivational morphology is added...the base word remains Kushite, not Egyptian.
6. "Tocharian" was referenced because of being named in error and later efforts to correct that.
7. Yes, I know about endonyms, glossonyms, exonyms, etc...your argument was that Kushite is derived of a toponym and for some reason that cannot be used as the name of the language even though it is used as a descriptor in every other capacity. This is silly given that 'Meroitic' and 'Meroite' are derived of Meroë, a toponym. My argument was and is just that. The argument to exclude 'Kushite' as the proper name of the language when it is used to describe everything else about the culture, territory, and people is, again, silly. 'Meroitic' at this point of our knowledge should only be used sensu stricto for the Meroitic period which is valid. But, yes, you are correct that Wikipedia is not the proper place to do that since it is not a research platform, it is merely an online encyclopedia which should only cite reputable, published research.
8. I did not say "Langue de Koush" (Language of Kush) should be translated as 'Kushite Language'...just that it is functionally equivalent.
9. Yes, my response to your argument was to 'remedy' the 'error'. You made sense.
10. I may add some additions and edits too. Some of your editing is problematic in that it creates the need for explanations which require citations. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I'm surprised to read that the Meroitic language was written in Egyptian hieroglyphs prior to the creation of the Meroitic script in the Meroitic period. I've read Egyptian inscriptions from Kush that predate written Meroitic, but I was unaware of any written Meroitic in any script other than Meroitic itself. Are you referring to the representations of Kushite names that we see in prior Egyptian texts, or are there actual texts that you know of in Meroitic, written in Egyptian hieroglyphs? If the latter, I would love to read these! However: The fact that Egyptian was written before Meroitic does not mean that Egyptian representations of Meroitic terms are preferable to later Meroitic representations. It would be perverse, for example, to refer to the language that you & are writing in as 'Anglica' because the Latin term is attested prior to 'Ænglisc', & 'Anglica' is probably derived from a term used by the Angles.
2. A very key point that's been fundamental to modern linguistics since Saussure is the distinction between diachronic & synchronic identity. I think you're conflating these. Synchronically, 'Arabic' & 'Spanish' are English words. Diachronically, they have a history partially common with the words عربي & español. However, I cannot use the word عربي when speaking English & expect to be understood; if I use the word 'Arabic' here in Egypt, I will be understood to be either speaking English, or adopting an English affectation. The origin of these words in Semitic & Romance roots does not make them any less English today. Diachronic origin is not synchronic identity. That a word has been adopted into English does not make it un-English, "technically" or otherwise. 'Beef' is not French; 'cheese' is not Latin; 'outlaw' is not Norse; 'chocolate' is not Nahuatl. These are all English words, regardless of their origin. If I say 'Give me a beef & cheese sandwich.', I haven't just uttered a trilingual sentence. There are several precise ways to say what you want to say, here: Spanish is an English word derived from a Romance root. 'Cheese' is an English word of Latin origin. 'Arabic' is an English word derived from Arabic. There is no "technical" context in any form of academic linguistics in which any of these words are not English. Nor, once modified in English, do the words retain the same synchronic identity within their language of origin. This is fundamental. This marks the point at which 20th century linguistics split off from 19th century philology. I'll grant that in casual conversation, if you say 'Cheese is actually a Latin word.', you'll be understood. But all kinds of inexact speaking work fine in casual conversation. kꜣš is an Egyptian word. qes is a Meroitic word. The former probably derives from the latter. But that diachronic connection does not allow us to say that kꜣš is a Meroitic word. We can accurately say that kꜣš (probably) derives from or comes from or originates in Meroitic. But it is an Egyptian word.
3. I have not said that 'Kushite is derived of a toponym and… that cannot be used as the name of the language'. I said: 'Many language names are related to toponyms, but that's not a transhistorical rule.' I don't think that's a reasonable reading of what I wrote. I have explicitly said that the endonym might be related to/derived from the toponym. ('It is plausible that the Meroitic term corresponding to "Meroitic language" or "Kushite language" relates to a toponym…') The core point, though, is that a toponym does not necessarily lead to a language name. Language names are frequently not related to place names. They also frequently are! But knowing the Meroitic word qes as a toponym & even maybe as a demonym doesn't allow us to conclude that the Kushites called their language a related term. At best we can speculate. Other possibilities, each of which is attested in many languages:
   1. Perhaps the Kushites called their language by a name related to their word for 'people' (eg, Navajo, German, Welsh [close]).
   2. Perhaps the Kushites called their language by a name related to their word for 'free' (eg, Gəʕəz, Thai, French).
   3. Perhaps the Kushites called their language by a name related to a toponym other than qes, such as a place of origin (eg, English, Latin, Greek).

Your hypothesis is very plausible. I don't know of any evidence to controvert it. But it is only a plausible hypothesis. I don't think it can be pushed beyond that until real progress is made in working out Meroitic, or until some hitherto unnoticed or undiscovered ancient source in a language we understand says: 'The Kushites call their language X.' Pathawi (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Pathawi! Sorry for the delay. I've been working offline on the edits to the Meroitic article. I hope you will like them when they are posted.

1. Why is it surprising? "Minoan" phrases are written in Egyptian script and Semitic phrases are written in Egyptian script...it is likewise with Kushite. In fact, in the Saite additions to the Egyptian Book of the Dead, there are "Nubian" aka Kushite Spells/ Chapters...Spells/ Chapters 162 - 165. You find Kushite words and names in those Spells/ Chapters. How do we know they are Kushite? The text of Spell/ Chapter 164 tells is us directly in Egyptian:

   • Egyptian: ...<m D.t nHs(ı͗) n ı͗wntyw tA stı͗(t)>...
   • English: "...in (the) nHs(ı͗)/ Kushite language/ speech of (the) archers/ bow-men of (the) Bow-land/ Kush..."

   Again, Kushite words appear sporadically throughout the entire Egyptian corpus.
2. I do understand all that, but this situation is not like that. <k3s/š> is a Kushite word directly transcribed into Egyptian. Here is an example of what happened...say I have a Hebrew word and I transcribe the Hebrew word into the Latin Alphabet. That transciption does not remove the fact that the word is directly Hebrew. It is a Hebrew word directly transcribed into the Latin Alphabet...for instance, the word, "Shalom". "Shalom" is not English, it is a directly transcribed Hebrew word in the Latin Alphabet. Another example is "Rg Veda" which is directly Vedic Sanskrit, and not English at all, although, it is used in English in very specific situations. This is the situation with <k3s/š>...it is a direct transcription of Kushite: <qes(w)>, <qos>. The thing is, the direct Egyptian transcription of <qes(w)>, <qos> is much older than the attestations in the Meroitic alphasyllabaries. The linguistic contact between Egyptian and Kushite is quite ancient. We know the direction of this direct transcription is likely Egyptian ← Kushite based on phonological considerations which were demonstrated earlier in our dialogue.

   Egyptian: <k3s/š> ← directly ← Kushite: <qes(w)>, <qos>

   • Egyptian:/k/, /q/, and, sometimes, /g/ = Kushite: <k(a)>, <q(a)>
   • Egyptian: <3> /ʔ/ (sometimes vocalic) = Kushite: <a>, <e> /e, ə/, <o> /u/
   • Egyptian: /s/, /š/ = Kushite: <s(a)>, <s(e)>

   Direct transcription...get it? hahaha.
3. Maybe I should have better clarified my stance. I am not saying that <qes(w)>, <qos> is the name the Kushites used for their language. What I am saying is that we should use what they called themselves to name their language since we do not know the glossonym directly. We know they labeled themselves or their territory as <qes(w)>, <qos>, so let's use that as the designator for the language. Does that make sense now? A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Language Classification

User 64.71.94.2 talk, (NONE OF THIS IS TO BE USED IN THE ARTICLE), this is just my viewpoint and a very brief explanation to you of that. While I believe that Kushite/ Meroitic (K/M) is very likely Afroasiatic (AA) lexically, seemingly morphologically, and phonologically, this is not the current majority view. My belief is very partially based on these things:

1. Very many AA languages have a paucity of vowels, 1 to 7 - averaging at 4. K/M has 4. Proto-Semitic had 3. Several Chadic languages have 1, 2, or 3. In fact, Proto Chadic may not have had any vowels. Nilo-Saharan (N-S) on the other hand has a tendency towards large to very large vowel inventories. The average N-S vowel inventory is at least 7 - 12 vowels, some inventories are nearly 30 vowels (Anuak, Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk), and one variety of Dinka (South-Central) has nearly 40. Several N-S languages have smaller vowel inventories due to language contact with AA.
2. It is claimed that because K/M has only one sibilant and a small consonantal inventory that it belongs to N-S. This is not necessarily true. There are several AA languages that have small consonant inventories and low numbers of sibilants. Afar(af) has only 1 sibilant, Beja has 2, Somaloid languages have 3, and Egyptian reduced its inventory to just 2 (if you consider the affricates to be palatalized consonants instead), Arsi-Borana-Guji Oromo has 3, Boro/ Shinasha Omotic has 2, and Proto-Lowland East Cushitic is reconstructed with just 1 sibilant. Numerous Chadic languages have 1 or 2 sibilants and one Chadic language has 0 sibilants (Pero). Very many of these Chadic languages are in the midst of non-AA languages with several sibilants. So a small consonantal inventory and low sibilant count is no argument for exclusion from AA at all.
3. It is also argued that the K/M word order makes a better fit for N-S. That is false. This is said based on comparison to Old Nubian word order. See below:

• K/M: Type 21 word order: SOV/ Po(st)/ N + Gen/ N + Adj
• Old Nubian: Type 24 word order: SOV (frequently SVO also)/ Po(st)/ Gen + N/ N + Adj

K/M and Old Nubian differ by one word order category. There are several word order types that differ from both Old Nubian and K/M by one category (very many in Africa). Here are the languages that match K/M’s word order type exactly:

Type 21: SOV/ Po/ NG/ NA

• Niger–Congo: Atlantic–Congo: Ewe ||| Kru
• Afroasiatic: Cushitic (Central): Bilen ||| (Eastern): Lowland: Oromo, Konso, Somali, Arbore, Bayso, Dasenech, Rendille ||| (Eastern): Dullay, Dahalo ||| Omotic: North: Dizi/ Maji.
• Nilo-Saharan: Kanuri ||| Teda.
• Isolates: Elamite ||| Sumerian.
• Tibeto-Burman: Ladakhi.
• Some Australian languages are part of this grouping also.

Exact matches to Old Nubian would seem to lend credence to its urheimat being in the Darfur area and its inclusion in Astaboran.

Type 24: SOV/ Po/ GN/ NA:

• Nilo-Saharan: Fur ||| Astaboran: Nara, Nyimang, and Taman ||| Kunama.
• Isolates: Sandawe.

Now, with all that being said…you cannot change the classification of the language from “Unclassified” until the appropriate research has been published, peer-reviewed, and achieves a majority approval and acceptance. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section

I'm bringing this to Talk as I want to avoid an edit war, but I think the reversal of Florian Blaschke's 29 August careful editing is a real step backward. I understand that this was meant to incorporate constructive criticism, but I think it missed the most important point: the lead remains 'utterly confusing for a layperson.'

The MoS Lead section document is, I think, a good guide for how the lead section should be approached. There are several points at which I think the current Meroitic lead section misses the mark:

• Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The current version front-loads far too much information about Meroitic which is not, then, elaborated upon later. This is a good indication that it belongs later in the article.
• Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. This is similar to the above, but in general the current version seems to aim to say everything there is to say about any given aspect of the topic as soon as that aspect is mentioned.
• Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject.
• There is a guideline for the number of paragraphs based on the length of the article. We're in the 2–3 paragraph range. It's notable that the current lead section comprises more than half of the article by length.

I strongly recommend undoing the most recent edit, and then making the additions A.Tamar Chabadi was working on to Florian's version. The lead should be far shorter & should leave most details for the body of the article. Pathawi (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Pathawi...Yes, I am working on that. I actually agree with you. Been working offline between things. Your help would be much appreciated. I am glad you commented. Like I said, any constructive advice is very welcome. I want this article to be as informative and well-sourced as it can possibly be. People have been editing all along while I was busy with other things. So I request that you write the Lead or restore Florian's decision. I will work on overview. There is so much information and the sourcing of it that it's difficult to tell how much to add and where. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)