Post by imhotep06 on Sept 5, 2010 18:20:51 GMT -5
"/ /" is actually a notation for a phoneme, not a sound. A phoneme can be a sound, but a sound cannot be another sound so I do not think that you are making any sense here. Plus ts->t is definitely not be a normal sound shift.
This is interesting. The very word phoneme, from the Greek, means “a sound uttered” and represents a range of sounds (smallest units uttered). The notation is often rendered either “/ /” or “[ ]” as seen in R. Lord’s Comparative Linguistics (1966) chapter on phonemes. The <> symbols are used to represent graphemes. For example, the /l/ sound in Egyptian is written using the <l> grapheme (see Antonio Loprieno Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction 1995:31). The concept of “a sound cannot be another sound” doesn’t make sense and doesn’t relate to my comment. But I’ll let you explain that.
Also, in Yoruba, the /sh/ (/ʃ/) phoneme is a recent evolution in Standard Yoruba and a few other dialects from an earlier */tʃ/ (or perhaps /t̪/) as exemplified by the majority of other Yoruba dialects so your comparison is quite irrelevant here.
Then what was the sound in the “other” dialects that didn’t go through the sound replacement? A sound not being “noticed” in the national convention does not equal the sound doesn’t exist in the language. Your statement is misleading. As we can see from the chart below, the /ts/ sound in West Africa was an /s/ in East. Keep in mind the
What about providing evidence for the variation actually existing in Egyptian proper to begin with?
Because the ancient Egyptians weren’t linguists and didn’t have IPA symbols 5000 years ago. All ANY linguist can do is guess at the variations (although “educated” guesses). All you can do is examine living languages and understand that it is not likely that s > ts; but ts > s. Contrary to popular belief, the ancient Egyptian graphemes were approximate sounds. Egyptian is a trade and priestly language; thus why its vocabulary is small (just around 16,000 words: Loprieno, 1995). With this, the various ethnic groups who wrote using the script weren’t trying to be exact in pronunciation for words, even if they existed in related languages.
In the Amarigna/Tigrigna languages we see this convention where their /ts/ corresponds with Egyptian /t/ (sometimes /d/). The Egyptian ha-t-a “prince, chief of a nome” becomes haTS’ay “emperor” in Tigrigna. Egyptian htr “stable, cage, stall” becomes haTS’ur “fence, enclosure” in Tigrigna. Ancient Egyptian Gebt/Qbt “Egypt” in Amarigna is gebTS “Egypt.”
Egyptian ---- Tigrigna
wdja “to send out, to go out on a journey, to roam” ---- waTSa “go, go out”
pth “to open, to make open-work, to engrave” ---- baTS’hae “carve, engrave” ([ciLuba] = bitaayisha “to burst, burst open, slam” <-taayisha, -taayika /– bitaayitaayi “speak loudly, loud voice [ptah spoke creation into existence in the Memphite Theology])
s-rut “to make to grow or flourish” ---- saraTS’a “sprout” (Amarigna)
The tshi prefix is actually an evolution from *ki and can hardly be cognate with Egyptian -t feminine/abstract words/collective suffix.
An evolution or substitution? Sounds don’t “morph,” they are replaced. And let’s say you are correct, it would have no bearing on this discussion. You would have to mention the other forms of the prefix which are ci-, cya-, ki- and ti- (and sometimes di-) in ciLuba. It is a known fact that the affixes in Niger-Kordofanian were words unto themselves. It would be advantageous to see what the “prefixes” were in meaning prior to the standard prefixation before making a critique.
Secondly, the *ki > t transformation/substitution is already attested to in literature. Loprieno (1995:31-32) discusses this sound “shift” in Afro-Asiatic. As noted, the Afro-Asiatic velar plosives *k, *g, and *q (soft k) displayed two outcomes in Egyptian. They either 1) are maintained as k /k/, g /g/, and q /q/, or 2) they are palatalized into T /c/, j /j/ and D /j/. In other words, both forms exist simultaneously in different words. Martin Bernal, in Black Athena Vol. III: The Linguistic Evidence (2005:245-6)
The origin of the Egyptian /tj/ from an earlier /k^y/ and /3/ as a liquid /r/ or /l/ were discussed in Chapter 8 above. Thus one could hypothesize a form *enkara in which originally allophonic variants of /k/ and /k^y/ became phomemically distinct and the palatalized variant lost its initial /n/. In fact, the hypothetical proto-form exists in reality as <em>inkera</em> and <em>enkera</em> “soul, life” in the Central Cushitic languages of Bilen and Kwara.
This confirms that the *ki became t in Egyptian, as it is the old Nkulu, Nkole, Ngal, nGole, Cyal, Kal; ciKololo “bird, hawk, raven” (symbols of the soul/spirit of man in Egyptian and all across Africa: from *ku “bird, soul”) that became nTr in Egyptian as these terms are also the Bantu words for ancestors and Gods.
The ciLuba language is one of the most conservative Bantu languages (Gloria Cocchi, Locative Constructions in Bantu) and is known for maintaining proto-forms as well as the modern variations of forms. Thus why in ciLuba Ṯ, T /Č, č, c are read as Ti, Ci, Či, Tshi and the letter D is read as Dye/Dje. A Luba would read Tmwn /or Čmwn, Cmwn as Timun/Čimun, Cimun. These are interchangeable variations of the same sound (phonemes).
In Egyptian we have mnmn.t “herd, group of animals, cattle, livestock” (reduplication of root mntj/mnt “animal”). In ciLuba this same word is Cimuna “domestic animal” (goat, sheep, cow, etc.). We also have Dimuna “breeding” (cattle). In Egyptian we have Imn.t “vulture, eagle.” In ciLuba it is ci-Iminyi/cimini “vulture, eagle.”
This last association is important for the word Mw.t “mother” uses the vulture symbol. In ciLuba we have CiMawu/CiMau "Primordial Mother" or Mwadi "Primordial Mother", "First Lady (of the country / kingdom / of the court). Again, the so-called feminine -t corresponds with ciLuba -ci and -di (whose other variations are ti, tshi, and či).
The *k to t for ciLuba applies to Egyptian as well so this argument is null and void. Let’s be thorough. In Egyptian you have mnD “breast” and mnat “nurse, guardian” (both incorporating a breast glyph). In ciLuba we have the following: cyaMwinu “where you breastfeed, source of milk for babies.” Cya is another variation of Či. We are familiar with Egyptian maa.t. In Coptic one rendering is mee (mçi, mei, mee or me). In ciLuba this is rendered as Meeyi or Cyama/Cama “truth, just, law.”
These are NOT chance correspondences and forces a competent researcher to reevaluate the notion of a “feminine” t.
