Talk:Meroitic language

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

message: Kwamikagami's edit, which was solely a removal of content, was based on the idea that "data from the 40s is completely out of date."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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: May 25th Edit

message: Kushite/ Meroitic: < l(a)ẖ(a) > "great, big, elder" — Afroasiatic: *l-ḫ “good” [G. Takacs] or *lVq̇- "to surpass/ exceed": 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.
 */-nd-/, */-nt-/ → (/-d-/) → /-r-/ is unsupported in Nilo-Saharan (C. Ehret). The Nara form = Kushite/ Meroitic only if an '*/-nd-/ → /-d-/' language (like Nubian or Kunama) → Nara. No known Nubian or Kunama forms exist(ed). 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) >/ < Ḫir(e)(n)t(a)te >.
Likely Astaboran: *kad(V) "woman, female": Nubian: *kar(r)V (Pre-Nubian: *d → r) || Nara: *kadV (*d → d/ V_) || Nyima: *kar (*d → r /_#). All based on C. Ehret's phonological rules. Cf., Astaboran: *kad(V) "woman, female" and Bantu: *-kádi "woman, female" (connection?). See Roger Blench's Niger-Saharan proposal.
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). 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”. 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/itʲ ~ *ma/ič "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). 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(A) > "bread". Cf. Egyptian: < ı͗dA > "bread", < ı͗t > "barley, wheat, corn, grain", < htyw > "bread, cakes, pastries" 
Egyptian: < d > = /tˀ/, < 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)</blockquote>
(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).
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)...See Roger Blench's Niger-Saharan Macrophylum proposal.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hi, Kwami. Thank you and I understand. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kushite/ Meroitic and Afroasiatic (Updated Apr 20, 2018)

message: 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 NotifyOnline 15:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Posted on noticeboard

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slight Edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The recent edit... 

message: 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: 
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.https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Wolff_slides.pdf 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.
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.
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)
thread_title:  Language Classification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 the Overview or whatever it is to be called. 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)
replies: text: I undid my own edit. About your minor edit to the language classification...I just put the languages in alphabetical order. When in doubt, alphabetize, hahaha. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: We had one sentence that was bothering me as it included both a BC & a CE date. I glanced over the section, saw that we mostly used BCE/CE, & switched the BC over to a BCE. …Then got sucked down a rabbit-hole of standardising everything on the page. At this point, I believe that the page is entirely BCE/CE. The Manual of Style accepts both, but recommends that only one system be used in any given article (with, of course, the exception of titles & quotations). The MoS also discourages editors from changing from one system over to another unless there's a particularly good reason to do so, & urges us to open up a conversation on the Talk page before doing that. I didn't really set about meaning to make a policy shift: I was just trying to standardise the page. My apologies if I've shifted it in a direction anyone objects to. I prefer BCE|CE to BC|AD, but the preference is minor. Pathawi (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone came in and did that. I had everything as BCE/ CE and they changed it to BC/ AD. They said it was to make it consistent with the rest of Wiki or something like that. So I did not argue. Perhaps I should have insisted it stayed as it was edited to be. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of Recent Reformatting of Dates

message: I undid the most recent edit, and thought I should explain why. First, it changes one instance of 'BCE' to 'BC'. The article should be consistent in this. If there's to be a change, it should be thruout the article, &, per the MoS Era policy, it should be discussed here on the talk page, first. Second, Meroitic's classification has been the subject of significant debate. If there's a reason to classify it as a Cushitic language, that should really be cited. Otherwise, the current version—unclassified, but possibly Nilo-Saharan or Afro-Asiatic—is best.
I had no objection to the additional photo. Pathawi (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Undo of Most Recent Edit

message: I undid a series of edits that collectively did nothing other than change the language family from '(possibly Nilo-Saharan or Afroasiatic)' to '(possibly Afroasiatic)'. While I suspect Meroitic is Afroasiatic, the Eastern Sudanic theory—in which Meroitic would be Nilo-Saharan—is probably as close as there is to a mainstream viewpoint. This is detailed elsewhere on this page. Others may disagree with the evidence—as I do—but Wikipedia isn't meant to represent our individual viewpoints. I'll note that this sort of drive-by has happened before. Whoever's doing it likely doesn't read the talk page, but just in case: Please use an actual Wikipedia account, rather than making these changes anonymously, & please engage with the talk page!
Pathawi (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 17 February 2019 Edit