Talk:Ethio-Semitic languages

message: while i'm not even remotely an expert on ethiopic languages, i'm pretty sure that this list is nowhere near complete. Gringo300 12:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: incomplete?

message: I see this word often, why is the catagory called Ethiopic? What exactly is Ethiopic? Mesfin 12:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethiopic in this context is a linguistic term referring to a certain linguistic subgrouping of the Semitic languages which confines itself roughly to the area that is commonly known as Ethiopia. — mark ✎ 14:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just a sub-grouping? I have noticed it often in reference to Ge'ez Mesfin 14:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It is considered a subgrouping of the Southern branch of the broader family of Semitic languages (itself part of Afro-Asiatic), and Ge'ez indeed is considered part of it. In linguistics, calling this group of languages a 'genetic subgrouping' entails the claim that these languages are more closely related to each other than to certain other Semitic languages. On a sidenote, another common term for this group of languages is 'Ethiopian Semitic' (instead of Ethiopic Semitic). — mark ✎ 15:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen the word Ethiopic except when it is used as a replacement for the word Ge'ez. Couldn't "Ge'ez languages" be used instead? It would be more accurate then using the word "Ethiopic" or "Ethiopian". Mesfin 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, now I see the problem. There is a difference, though: Ge'ez is but one of the Ethiopic languages, i.e. the Ethiopic branch of Southern Semitic. Ge'ez might be called 'Ethiopic' sometimes, but it would of course never be called 'the Ethiopic languages' (plural). But I agree that it is not really clear anyway, so I propose to move this article to Ethiopic Semitic languages. — mark ✎ 08:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Ethiopian Semitic languages. — mark ✎ 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To which I just moved it. — mark ✎ 08:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethiopic?

message: It would be helpful to have some indication of oimportance / modern significance next to the languages in this list.  Some of them are long-unused, others are alive and thriving today. +sj + 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: While the use of genetic evidence for larger groups is controversial, the use of genetic evidence for small subgroups is absolutely ridiculous.  Keep the genetics to Semitic and above, it becomes increasingly irrelevant for the smaller subgroups.  Unless the evidence specifically discusses Ethiopian Semitic and not Semitic as a whole, it is irrelevant here.  --Taivo (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Languages are inevitably connected to to certain sub-groups of people and genetics are a tool to trace the origins of ethnic groups and thus their ancestral, common language. And this reference (which I have restored since you didn't even care to discuss it here) refers to semitic people spreading from the Arabic penisula to Ethiopia and other areas. Please read the full article to learn how the authors clearly connect the different branches of Semitic languages (including Ethiopic) to genetic patterns of the specific population. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless this alleged haplogroup is specifically cited as being unique to Ethiopian Semitic speakers then it's irrelevant here and citing this article is a case of improper WP:SYN and WP:OR.  --Taivo (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain what exactly makes it irrelevant even if it was non-specific to Ethiopian Semitic speakers. The study shows that "interestingly, in Ethiopia, all Cushitic Oromo and ~29% of Semitic Amharic J1 chromosomes are J1*" and it clearly shows that there is a genetic connection between speakers of Amharic and other ethnic groups who migrated out of the Arabic peninsula in prehistoric times. And please be careful with citing WP rules since one might as well think that you are to be blamed for WP:POV ("genetics are irrelevant anyway to language articles"). De728631 (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: P.S.: Genetic and linguistic coevolution worldwide has been studied for years (, , ) so please tell us why genetic studies should be irrelevant to language articles. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this article is about a small well-defined group of languages, whose separate history is not particularly ancient.  Keep the focus here.  It's not about the Semitic family and its origin and spread.  That information belongs in the Semitic languages article.  Unless the genetic information focuses specifically on Ethiopian Semitic, then it's simply too broad an issue to place in this article on a specific small subgroup of the languages that the genetics article focuses on.  Even if the genetics article mentions Amharic in a laundry list of Ethiopian languages that are not specifically Semitic, that doesn't necessarily relate to Ethiopian Semitic, since Amharic is but one of those languages on one branch of Ethiopian Semitic.  There is no reason to think it is necessarily inclusive of the other branch of Ethiopian Semitic.  Second, genetic information is not universally accepted by linguists as being a valid subbranch of linguistic research.  It is still very controversial since, first, since the conclusions that geneticists draw are often linguistically wrong.  Cavalli-Sforza's famous comments about the haplogroups and linking them to Greenberg's conclusions about Native American languages are a prime example.  He was simply wrong.  The fact that Pygmies are a separate and distinct genetic branch, but they speak Bantu and Ubangian languages closely related to their neighbors lends further dissociative credence to the separation of linguistics and genetics.  Linguists are not uniformly drinking the genetics Kool-Aid.  So to blindly insert genetics information that is written about Semitic as a whole into lower-level subgroup articles is inappropriate.  Even at Semitic languages, the information should be written in such a way as to indicate that genetics is not automatically appropriate information in a linguistics article.  Just because a physical group of people carrying some gene moves to another area, doesn't mean they automatically carry their language(s) with them.  Look at the Pygmies.  They are genetically distinct and have been for tens of millennia (at least), but there is no trace of any separate "Pygmy" language family and they speak languages that are closely related to their neighbors.  Languages have no genetic component.  Look at the United States, there's no genetic component to English as spoken here.  Genetics can always and only offer the merest suggestion of a language migration, it can never, ever offer definitive proof.  --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At no time has there been a claim that the relevant study was authoritative or even a proof for the diversification of Ethiosemitic in Ethiopia and Eritrea — the IP who first introduced it wrote that the genetics study generally suppports this finding. And it does so specifically naming Ethiopic groups of Semitic speakers while connecting them to an ancient origin in Arabia. Which is what the WP article does as well based on the Bayesian phylogenetic analysis by Kitchen et al., another genetic study which you did not question. So I don't see your rationale. They even state the same relation between Cushitic and Ethiomeitic speakers. And it doesn't matter at all if linguists accept genetic evidence. WP is independent and reports and collects facts that have been reliably published and the haplogroup study by Chiaroni et al. is a reliable source. There is no synthesis or original research at all in combining these two sources. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that unless linguists specializing in these languages are using these genetic studies to supplement their linguistic arguments, then using the studies here in Wikipedia to support X or Y theory is inappropriate synthesis and original research.  Just because geneticists inappropriately use linguistic labels rather than ethnic labels in their articles doesn't make them appropriate sources our our linguistic articles.  Wikipedia is not "independent" of the scientific sources that it relies on.  If the scientific sources do not make certain assertions and do not synthesize the information in certain ways, then the non-specialist and anonymous editors of Wikipedia do not have the right, under Wikipedia policy, to make those assertions or synthesis.  I was going to add a third point to my comment above that specifically addresses this.  Unless the linguistic specialists in these languages are using those genetic studies as evidence, then Wikipedia editors cannot use them as evidence.  That is where the inappropriate synthesis and original research comes into play.  We must rely on the specialist sources for our articles, not on peripheral scientific articles in other fields--especially in this case, where geneticists use linguistic labels when they actually mean ethnic groups.  The genetic haplogroup studies are perfectly appropriate for the articles on these ethnic groups.  But this is not an article about an ethnic group, but about a linguistic group of languages.  It's not people we're talking about in this article, it their languages.  Too many of our anonymous editors confuse the two.  --Taivo (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Baynesian study mentioned in the article is a linguistic article that analyzes linguistic data.  It has nothing to do with genetics.  --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above languages and ethnicity are most often closely related and the Chiaroni study explicitely refers to speakers of certain languages and their genetic pools. It seems to me we won't agree here so let's hear other editors' opinions on this matter. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it yourself:  "speakers", not "languages".  There is a distinct difference and that's why unless a linguist has used the genetic study, then it's not an appropriate reference here and violates WP:SYN and WP:NOR.  This article is not about speakers, but about languages.  --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is flawed. Speakers in this case are native speakers and therefore they are indicative for the distribution and origin of that particular language. Yes, this article is about languages but not about extinct languages so native speakers are very well relevant here. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Genetics tells us things about human beings, but tells us absolutely nothing about languages, because languages are not passed down with chromosomes. A child acquires the language of the community around him, which may be, but is not necessarily, the community of his biological parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on – and even if it is, there is no guarantee the child is acquiring the same language as his great-grandparents spoke (because a community can change what language it uses over time), or even that all eight of his great-grandparents spoke the same language. Genetics may tell us there was a movement of people from southern Arabia into Ethiopia and Eritrea 2800 years ago, and it may tell us that the modern descendants of those people (or most of them, or some of them) speak Ethiopian Semitic languages, but genetics cannot tell us that the people who moved 2800 years ago were themselves speakers of Proto-Ethiosemitic or anything like it. Only the discovery and decipherment of writing among the artifacts left by those people could do that. You're simply mistaken to say "Languages are inevitably connected to to certain sub-groups of people", and while it's true that "genetics are a tool to trace the origins of ethnic groups", genetics do not and cannot tell us anything about their ancestral common language. You need only look at the enormous ethnic variety among speakers of modern-day English to understand that. Angr (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right and that is why the text in question was also referring to a genetic study "supporting" the linguistic evidence. Please consider also the last paragraph of that study which explicitely cites Kitchen et al. in relation to their own findings: "A recent Bayesian analysis of Semitic languages supports an origin in the Levant 5750 years ago and subsequent arrival in the Horn of Africa from Arabia 2800 years ago,[Kitchen] thus providing an indirect support of our phylogenetic clock estimates. It is important to note that the glottochronological dates yield estimates for the break-up and expansion of the Proto-Semitic language. Proto-Semitic, itself, may have been spoken in a localized linguistic community for millennia before its bifurcation into the East and West Semitic branches. In summary, haplogroup J1e data suggest an advance of the Neolithic period agriculturalists/pastoralists into the arid regions of Arabia from the Fertile Crescent and support an association with a Semitic linguistic common denominator."  Here they are actively combining genetics and lingustics and WP is entitled to cite their work, be it correct or not. De728631 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, De..., you are misinterpreting the text.  The controversial article is a GENETICS article, not a linguistic article.  As a genetics article, they are calling upon a linguistics article to prove their genetic assumptions.  You are trying to do the reverse here--use the genetics article to inform the linguistics.  That is a circular argument in any definition of logic.  The authors of the genetics article have no proof that the people who carried those genes spoke Semitic languages and have offered no proof whatsoever.  They only cite the linguistics article as "support" of a movement of people, but as both Angr and I have pointed out, languages are not indissolubly linked to people and even less so to genes.  But the critical issue here, and one that you completely ignore, is that there is never any proof that genes and languages are linked.  All "evidence" is circumstantial and any geneticist (or linguist) who argues otherwise is wrong.  You are trying to draw a link that simply doesn't exist.  Since this is never "evidence" in a scientific sense, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles as if it is proven science.  --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You write as if this is somehow acceptable science in linguistics.  It's not.  Look, for example, at the differing genetic and linguistic trees in this chart from your sources above.  There are many, many differences between the two (compare, for example, the differing placements of Tigak, Tungag, and Notsi in the two charts) and the forced marriage of the two trees at the bottom is simply poor science.  The "similarities" are not hard science, they are statistical correlations.  Statistics is not evidence, it is always only a suggestion, never a clear correlation in the absence of any other linkage.  --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To Taivo's comments I would add that glottochronology itself is a fringe theory at best (and full-fledged pseudoscience at worst), so any conclusions drawn upon its results are very shaky. If the genetics side of the equation is scientifically acceptable, it would be more appropriate to put this information into another article, such as Amhara people or History of Ethiopia or something like that. It really has no business here. Angr (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've now read that Chiaroni article for the third time and you're right in that we cannot draw reverse conclusions from it. And if glottochronology is really so dubious, let's leave it all out of this WP language article. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While glottochronological and lexicostatistical studies are not universally accepted within linguistics, they do rise (a little) above the level of WP:FRINGE because, in the absence of more rigorous studies of relationships that gain wide acceptance, they serve as an interim, stop-gap solution.  And, unlike the genetics article above, they are linguistic studies based on language data.  As such, they should be discussed with appropriate qualifiers and not given the stamp of established fact, but still mentioned if they have not been superseded by other studies.  --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic "Evidence" 

message: aggreed i have no expertise in any of this language but this is definantly incomplete  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaqadim (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why there is a stub tag at the bottom of the page. De728631 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete 

message: The chart includes "early version of Amharic" under the Northern section.. I am not sure what this implies. Does this imply that an early version of Amharic was a descendant of the Northern half of Ethio-Semitic? Then how does later Amharic end up in the Southern half? If there is published evidence for this "early version of Amharic", it should be cited. If there is no evidence, probably this line should be removed. Pete unseth (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pete unseth I believe it ended up in the South because it was the domain of the Harla. The Harla were subjugated by the Geez Axum empire. I don't believe they ever had a northern branch just a few loan words perhaps. Kiziotherapy (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Early version of Amharic"

message: South language groups are I believe the Harla language category.  Kiziotherapy (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few linguists who see a language called Harla as a notable part of Ethiopian linguistic history, Giogio Banti is one. Kiziotherapy cites a passage from Banti, but in the passage Banti only mentions it once, just in passing. Until more work is done that confirms the significance of a separate language called Harla, it will not be incorporated into the discussion of Ethio-Semitic classifications. Pete unseth (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ulrich is another  Perhaps there's still a notability issue. Kiziotherapy (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Ethiopic Transversal is Harla  

message: "Abyssinian" is an outdated term which has no Linguistic studies usage.  Geez is known as "Ethiopic"
 States The Ge'ez or Ethiopic script possibly developed  Abyssinian is a politically charged term and outdated also.Otakrem (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Otakrem, for your info you have reverted more than 4 times within 24 hours (unacceptable editing even if the editor has convincing reason for reverting). Before I will revert your last edit after 24 hours I will discuss the issues. Above you said "Abyssinian" is an outdated term which has no Linguistic studies usage." and "Abyssinian is a politically charged term", I have repeatedly asked you in the edit summary to give me an answer on who said that? Reliable source or you Otakrem? Based on wikipedia talk page we need to discuss issues based reliable source and for every point you raised in discussion there has to be a source attributed to it other wise it will be regarded as original research and that kind of discussion is not allowed in here. Lastly you said "primary source" which one is the primary source among the two sources used here  &   to add "also known as Abyssinian languages". Be specific & precise on which sources you have issues and present your evidences on why they cannot be used to add content. Moreover, your reasoning for deleting based on "outdated term" justification shows that there is agreement by you that it was used previously to name the Ethio-semtiic languages and based on your agreement then it should be returned because wikipedia is a place to inform readers on present usage as well as past usage of terms/article titles based on NPOV policy. Actually you trying to hide it's past name for refering Ethio-semitic speaking people is an obvious violation of NPOV, either for poltical reason violating WP:ADVOCACY, or for your issues you have with me on Abyssinian people violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion of "Abyssinian" has gone on long enough. "Abyssinian" is a geographically based term, "Semitic" is a linguistic term. Ethiosemitic (or Ethio-Semitic) refers to a linguistically related languages found within a geographic area. I know of no author in the past who actually used the term "Abbysinian" to refer to a specific set of linguistically related languages in "Abyssinia", not Leslau, not Ullendorf, not d'Abbadie, not Cerulli, not Hetzron. Instead of arguing whether the term "Abbysinian" should be mentioned here as having been used in the past to refer to a set of linguistically related languages (not merely "Abbysinian languages" meaning the various languages found there), the challenge is to find and cite any examples of authors in the past who actually used it to refer to only the Semitic languages of Ethiopia. Pete unseth (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Pete unseth I agree with your statements here. I have not found sources that explicitly say "Abyssinian" languages as a Linguistic term rather only a general "regional" name they gave to different ethnic groups who spoke Ethiosemitic languages. It is my understanding, the usage of "Abyssinian" in the earlier studies was used as a geographical identifier rather than any specific linguistic term/definition of the Ethiosemitic languages.Otakrem (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete unseth, some authors using Abyssinian languages to refer only Ethiopian Semitic languages: "Sahri, Soqotri and related dialects; Abyssinian languages - Amharic, Tigre, Tigrina or Tigrai, Harari, Gurage, Argoba", "This is the Ethiopic or Abyssinian language; or as it is called by the people themselves, the Gees language", "Abyssinian language (Ethiopic) is not properly included in this group, since it and its daughters (Amharic, Tigre, Tigrena, and Harari) are clearly ...", "The better known Abyssinian languages appear to be Himyaritic modified by ancient Abyssinian*....*To this class (Ethiopic) belong the old Ethiopic or Gheez of Tigre, the modern Tigre. the Arkiko, Amhara, Argobba, Harragie, Hurrur or Adhari, Guragie and Gafat", "According to M.Cohen the individual Abyssinian languages are the. result of a parallel evolution of many close South Arabic dialects", "less-known southern Abyssinian languages (Gurage,1 Harari, Argobba)". By the way " also known as Abyssinian" is added in the article by Soupforone initially and I added more sources (not that it matters but just to counter otakrems claim it was added by me for political reason). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

text: In addition in your own source,  Page 20 of "The Sacred and Profane History..", they speak of Geez as an ancient language with the Linguistic term "Ethiopic" but they refer to the geographical location as "Abyssinia". This equivalent to calling someone from the United States as American but the language they speak as English. You wouldn't call English, American language because that is false statement, you would say that English is language spoken by Americans. Similarly, Geez is a language used in the Churches of Abyssinians(Amhara and Tigrayans) but the ancient Aksumites(Geez-speakers) were not Abyssinian people necessarily. If we are to go to the root of the word for Abyssinia = Habesha/Habashat, then that is another topic of which it is covered in the discussion of the Abyssinian people. Otakrem (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I will admit that EthiopianHabesha has found some sources that use the term "Abbysinian" as a linguistic cluster. Such great linguists that one spelled the name of classical Ethiopic as "Gees". OK, there were in the far past people who wrote of "Abbysinian" languages. Make sure that whatever the article says reflects that it was in the far past, and that this was a term only used by outsiders. Pete unseth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved "Abbysinian" to the last position in the string of alternate names. If it is to be included in the list, it must not be in a position of prominence. I hope this compromise brings an end to this dispute.  Pete unseth (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That works fine; thanks. Soupforone (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geez is Not known as "Abyssinian" in the Linguistic Studies. Outdated Term. Current term is Ethiopic 

message: What are you trying to do? You added , but this makes no sense. The Ethio-Semitic are a branch of Semitic. You are also removing a cited paragraph and any connection to Afroasiatic. Srnec (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes