Notes and data on the Nilo-Saharan languages

[zarahan]

Recognized as a major language phylum of Africa by many mainstream scholars & references, the Nilo-Saharan language family stretches from Egypt to Nigeria, to Tanzania. Core groupings are the best supported, including the Sudanic branch which extends to Cameroon in West Africa, with more controversy regarding Songhay and other “outlier” strands.



"Indeed, this view seems to be widespread in particular among non-specialists. But it is not clear what this skepticism is based upon. There nay in fact be a psychological reason for this. To the outsider it may look as if Greenberg simply grouped together a range of languages formally treated as isolated units and situated mainly between Afroasiatic languages to the North and Niger-Congo languages to the South. But contrary to a widely held belief that Greenberg was just lumping together left-over languages, in actual fact his classification was based on a judicious evaluation of the existing evidence... More and more grammatical evidence has emerged over the past decades for a Nilo-Saharan phylum, as a result of improved descriptions and historical-comparative studies on lower-level units... Greenberg (1971) supports the hypothesis by Trigger (1964) if an Eastern Sudanic (Nilo-Saharan) affiliation for Meroitic, the language of the Kingdom of Cush. Rilly (2003, 2009) presents further convincing evidence that the extinct language of the Meroitic empire, preserved in written records which have been only partly deciphered, shows Eastern Sudanic affinity. It probably is most closely related to Eastern Sudanic groups such as Nubian, Taman, Nara, and Nyimang (plus Dinik, (i.e. to Northern Eastern Sudanic (Rilly 2003; Dimmendaal 2008b).. "
--Gerrit Jan Dimmendaal 2011. Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages. p313.

"Nevertheless,, Ehret (2001) is to be complimented for putting together and comparing so many grammatical morphemes found in different Nilo-Saharan groups. Moreover, 'the Nilo-Saharan Etymological Dictionary' that forms the bulk of Ehret's text is a fertile source of suggestions for iso-glosses that can be more carefully worked out by other writers with more mainstream views about semantics and referencing previous work' as Blench (2000:303) put it. The present author considers the hypothesis of a Nilo-Saharan phylum (with the exclusion of Songhay, Koman and Gumuz) to be valid and worthwhile pursuing, in particular given a considerable number of grammatical (and lexical) morphemes that are likely to be cognate. Dimmendaal (to appear c) gives an extensive discussion of current knowledge especially with respect to the historical development of the grammatical systems across Nilo-Saharan."
--Dimmendaal 2011. p 318

"Whereas research over the past decades has resulted in additional historical comparative evidence becoming available in favor of Greenberg's hypotheses on Niger-Congo, and a Nilo-Saharan as well as an Afroasiatic phylum.."
--Dimmendaal 2011. p 324


"The next largest family in terms of both numbers of languages and numbers of speakers is Nilo-Saharan, probably the second oldest family in terms of the time depth of its differentiation. Benter 1996a has classified the languages of Nilo-Saharan into three major types along a continuum: Outlier-Satellite-Core. In Figure 2 the only languages to form a genetic group are the so-called "Core" languages to the right. It is the Outliers, the three nodes to the left that G. have caused many headaches.“
--Childs 2003. An Introduction to African Languages.

“A number of scholars have suggested that Nilo-Saharan forms a larger genetic unit with Niger-Congo.”
--Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012. Nilo-Saharan Languages. G. Dimmendaal
www.britannica.com/topic/Nilo-Saharan-languages


--------------------------
Note:
Some scholars say Songhay and Saharan is a part of Nilo-Saharan. Above the most common seeming view in the lit is given. But in any event many credible scholars see Nilo-Saharan as a valid phylum and/or hypothesis based on careful work, with the major core parts such as the Sudanic branches which stretch from Nubia to Cameroon drawing the most solid support. More arguments and debates surround specific parts and pieces that may or may not fit. But the cores seem to reflect the bulk of the support in most standard references and peer reviewed articles (See Dimmendaal 2008 for example). New research is continually adding more support to the field.

Anyone have any more data on Songhai and the other languages? Also links between Niger-COngo and Nilo-Saharan?

[clydewin98]

Meroitic is not a Nilo-Saharan language. Rilly's Proto-Nilo Saharah does not agree with the established Meroitic terms



“Established” Meroitic terms and their alternative Meanings


There are 26 Merotitic signs which researchers agreed had established Meanings before my decipherment of Meroitic. My identification of Tokharian/Kushana as the language of the Meroitic inscriptions has led me to accept some, but not all of the “established meanings for the Meroitic terms listed below:
“established meanings” alternative meanings
at, ‘bread .......................‘down the road’
wi, ‘brother.......................‘ ‘honor’
sem, wife......................‘sm, ‘protection,refuge’
kdi, woman.......................‘ woman
st,foot/feet.......................‘------
edhe,tedhe, born by.......................‘------
el,l,yel, give.......................‘ e ‘give’
mk, deity.......................‘‘diety’
lh, great.......................‘‘great’
mlo, good.......................‘ ml, ‘under influence, soul, ml-o, spiritual
mte, small,little.......................‘‘to unlock, to open’
qore, ruler.......................‘qor, ‘royal’; female royal:‘qor-I’;male royal:‘qor-e’
kdike, queen’s sister.......................‘------
‘tñyi, lion.......................‘-------
abr, ‘man’.......................‘ab/ ap, ancestor, father
ste, ‘mother’.......................‘‘mother’
s, person.......................‘s, man, king
še, son
šr, sister

abd, province land.......................‘ab ‘father, ancestor
kdis, sister.......................‘kdi ‘woman’
ato, water.......................‘-------
erike, terike, yerike ‘begotten of’.......................‘terike, ‘fashion and revitalize’
rike, ‘indeed to sojour’.......................‘yerike, ‘on a journey to;invigorate’, ‘revitalize ; to give form to’

A hypothesis must be supported by an experiment, and it should always be tested. If the evidence fails to support a hypothesis it is disconfirmed. To test a hypothesis, means you have to provide evidence of an alternative hypothesis, common sense does nothing to falsify a hypothesis.

Rilly's hypothesis that Meroitic can be read by reconstructing the proto-language is a good way to show how the scientific method works.

Rilly claims that Meroitic is Nilo-Saharan. He claims that this is supported by comparing the Proto-Nilo-Saharan to Meroitic, because the people living in Kush today are remnants of the Meroites.

First of all, lexicostatistics do not show a genetic relationship. Lexicostatistics or glottochronology, according to Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, "The process used to calculate the point in time at which two related or supposedly related languages separated" (pp.267-268).

Use of a proto-language to read Meroitic is pure conjecture and absent of any reality, because these terms are all made up.


We can disconfirm this theory because it is not supported by the historical and linguistic evidence we have concerning the linguistic and political history of Kush. We must reject Rilly's theory because ,we have no evidence that 1) Proto-Nilo-Saharan, as constructed by Rilly was ever spoken by a living being; 2) we have evidence that the Noba/Nubians entered Nubia long after the Kushites had founded Napatan and Meroitic civilizations, so eventhough they live in Nubia today, they are not representative of Kushite people who they were often in conflict with; 3) Egyptian documents make it clear that the Blymmes also entered the area after the founding of Napatan and Meroitic civilization, so even if some people claim that the Beja=Blymmes this is conjecture.

Consequently, even if Beja= Blymmes, they donot represent the Kushite people who founded the Napata and Meroe civilizations, because both the Noba and Blymmes entered Kush after its founding. This makes it clear that although Rilly's evidence looked promising, the data presented in support of the hypothesis fails to support his claim.

The Nubians were not Kushites.If they were not Kushites, how could they have played a role in Meroitic literacy?




If the Nubians were not Kushites how can Rilly use proto-terms constructed via Nubian languages to read Meroitic, a writing systems the Noba / Nubians never employed to write any of their inscriptions throughout their literate history?

Rilly claims that Meroitic is Nilo-Saharan. He claims that this is supported by comparing the Proto-Nilo-Saharan to Meroitic, because the people living in Kush today are remnants of the Meroites.

This theory is not supported by the historical and linguistic evidence we have concerning the linguistic and political history of Kush. We must reject Rilly's theory because ,we have no evidence that 1) Proto-Nilo-Saharan, as constructed by Rilly was ever spoken by a living being; 2) we have evidence that the Noba/Nubians entered Nubia long after the Kushites had founded Napatan and Meroitic civilizations, so eventhough they live in Nubia today, they are not representative of Kushite people who they were often in conflict with; 3) Egyptian documents make it clear that the Blymmes also entered the area after the founding of Napatan and Meroitic civilization, so even if some people claim that the Beja=Blymmes this is conjecture. Consequently, even if Beja= Blymmes, they donot represent the Kushite people who founded the Napata and Meroe civilizations, because both the Noba and Blymmes entered Kush after its founding. This makes it clear that although Rilly's evidence looked promising, the data presented in support of the hypothesis fails to support his claim.

[clydewin98]

Rilly’s use of Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani can not be used to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence this group of languages was ever spoken in the Meroitic Empire.

Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology allows him to read Meroitic. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor.

The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.

Rilly can not use this method to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god. With only 1 cognate Meroitic and Northern Eastern Sudani languages, there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language.

Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic culural words to date the time languages separated, can not be used to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages.
Rilly Paper


There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of adctual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the contruct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.

Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This meets none of the standards because there is no documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period.

Moreover, the principle language he hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits when he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.

Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documentated evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).

We can reject Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.


Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.

This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term hfrom Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic Empire.

H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.

The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568).

Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic. Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. The Nubian speakers lived far to the north of the Meroitic Empire, a fact Rilly acknowledges.

The Kushana used the Kharosthi/Karosti script. Inscriptions written in Kharosti date back to 251 BC.



The first Meroitic inscription dates back to the reign of Shanakdakheto (c.177-155 BC). The date of the first Meroitic inscriptions is 100 years after people the Kushana were writing their works in Kharosti.

[clydewin98]

.
There is increasing evidence that the Beja may provide a key to fully understanding the Meroitic language. Some years ago I deciphered the Kharamadoye inscription at Kalabsha. See olmec98.net/KALABSHA.htm


.

.

Today Beja repeat this message from their ancestors with pride as an indication to the long history of the Beja people. At Buzzle.com
www.buzzle.com/articles/freedom-for-dirar-ahmed-dirar-independence-for-sudans-beja-blemmyes.html

They note:

…… Hrmdoye ne qor ene ariteñ lne mdes ne mni-t kene
mk lebne ye re qe-ne q yi-t hl-ne y es bo he-ne q r lebne tro.
S-ne ariteñ net er ek li s-ne d-b li lh ne q r kene qor ene mnpte.

This was written 1670 years ago, at a moment the Blemmyan King Kharamadoye drove his compatriots to a point of national statehood at the northern area of the then ailing Meroitic kingdom in what is today's Sudanese North and Egyptian South. Using Meroitic scripture, the scribes of Kharamadoye immortalized down to our times an inscription on walls of the Mandulis temple at Talmis (modern Kalabsha). The beginning of the inscription reads in a plausible English translation as follows:

Kharamadoye the monarch and chief of the living Ariteñ, the great son and patron of Amani, you (who) revitalizes (man). The lord's voyage of discovery indeed gives the creation of Good. Act (now Amani) he travels to support good. Make a good welfare swell (for) the offering of the Chief, (he) desires indeed the restoration of eminence. The patron of good Ariteñ bows in reverence (before Amani) to evoke exalted nourishment (for) the patrons to leave a grand and exalted legacy to behold good. Oh Amani make indeed (a) revitalization (of) the monarch (and) commander of Great Napata…..”

When I first saw this claim that the Beja, represented the Blemmyan people of the Meroitic and Egyptian inscriptions I thought it might be hollow indeed. But after comparing Meroitic to Beja, the claim has considerable merit.

To test the hypothesis that the Beja language was related to meroitic, I compared Meroitic and Beja. The Beja material comes from Klaus and Charlotte Wedekind and Abuzeinab Musa, Beja Pedagogical Grammar (http://www.afrikanistik-online.de/archiv/2008/1283/beja_pedagogical_grammar_final_links_numbered.pdf ) ,

What I found from this cursory examination was most interesting. I will need to gather more vocabulary items from Beja, but I did find a number of matches:


Meroitic ……English……….. Beja
i ‘arrive at this point’ ………… bi ‘went’
t ‘he, she’ ……………………..ta ‘she’
ya ‘go’………………………….yak ‘start’
rit ‘look’……………………….rhitaa ‘you saw’
an(a) plural suffix……………..aan ‘these’
d(d) ‘say’………………………di(y) ‘say’
lb ‘energy, dynamic…………liwa ‘burn’
ken ‘to realize’……………….kana ‘to know’
bk ‘ripen’……………………..bishakwa ‘to be ripe’

The vocabulary items are interesting, but since they come from a grammar book there was not enough to provide an extensive comparison.

Meroitic and Beja share many grammatical features. For example, the pronouns are usually can be placed in front or at the end verbs e.g., Beja ti bi ‘she went’, Meroitic t-i ‘he goes’. In Beja, adi is used to indicate complete action Taman adi ‘I ate it completely’, Meroitic –a, serves the same purpose akin ne a ‘he has become completely learned’. In both languages the adverb is placed behind the noun Beja takii-da ‘small man’, Meroitic pt ‘praise’: pt es ‘manifest praise’. In Beja the future tense is form by ndi, Tami a ndi “I will eat’, Meroitic –n, s-ne yo-n Aman ‘The patron will bow in reverence to Aman’.

This makes it clear to me that the Beja language may be related to Meroitic and that the Beja represent the Blemmy nation of Old.

You can read more about my decipherment of Meroitic in my book Meroitic Writing and Literature




Meroitic Writing and Literature is divided into three parts. The first part of the book explains how I used the Kushana hypothesis to decipher the Meroitic script. It will outline the Classical literature that informed my decipherment of Meroitic and how Buddhists early settled in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Empire and spread their religion and writing system: Tocharian.
In Part two we outline the grammar of Meroitic. It will provide readers with a detailed overview of the Meroitic language and its grammar.
Part Three provides translations of key Meroitic. These texts provide knowledge of the lifeway’s of the Meroites especially their religion and some historical data.
The Meroitic literature discussed in this book include : The Inscriptions of Tanyidamani; The Meroitic Chamber Inscription of Philae; and Meroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in the Dodekaschoinas. These text were chosen because they include text written in archaic Meroitic (Tanyidemani), and other text written in late Meroitic.
Meroitic Writing and Literature, is the first account of the Meroitic language and literature. It will allow readers the opportunity to learn how to read/decipher Meroitic text, while acquiring an intimate knowledge of the Meroites as individuals.

Createspace e-Store: www.createspace.com/4241733