posted 27 May 2004 03:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Why would the mater be settled when you have presented no evidence?

---

The evidence was presented in that pdf I posted. Wolof and AE are NOT closely related, I'm not saying that there is no relationship between the two, I'm just saying the relationship between Wolof and AE is not close enough to warrant them both being in the same language family. The relationship to Chadic is much stronger. You have not proven that even if the Wolof üpicked up some Berber words for one and for two whether those Berber words were closely related to AE. There is no record of any close contact between AE's and Wolof. All I've seen is people copying Diop's comparisons verbatim without actually doing their own comparison between Wolof and AE. Even Christopher Ehret and Greenberg would never place Wolof and AE in the same family. There may indeed be a common distant relationship among all African languages but the relationship between AE and Wolof is not VERY close, otherwise we're reviving the old Hamitic Hypothesis by Meinhoff's sloopy comparisons.

posted 27 May 2004 04:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
I finally read the article, and though I can't say how close Wolof is to AE compared to other languages, I can say that that article does nothing to disprove Diop's work. We can argue forever over the use of individual words, but the author does not engage Diop's similarities in sentence structure between Wolof and AE.

Also, the author made the point that there were sounds present in AE that were not found in Wolof. This would make more sense if any among us had actually heard an AE speak. How do we know a sound existed in AE but not Wolof?

All in all, I wouldn't say Wolof is closer than other languages to AE. The languages are either related, or they aren't. But that article did nothing to prove that there was no relation between Wolof and AE. I also wouldn't doubt that a number of other languages were also close to AE.

---

Here is link for some Wolof words http://www.smcm.edu/academics/hss/studyabroad/gambia/GambiaHB/2002vocabulary.htm#Color

Here you will see that the words for black in Wolof is called Nyool, not anything close to Kem or Khem. The notion that AE and Wolof are somehow very closely related is officially debunked, if it was very close Ehret and Greenberg would have noticed it. Diop worship and comparing a few sentences will not change this.

posted 27 May 2004 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Here is link for some Wolof words

Here you will see that the words for black in Wolof is called Nyool, not anything close to Kem or Khem. The notion that AE and Wolof are somehow very closely related is officially debunked, if it was very close Ehret and Greenberg would have noticed it. Diop worship and comparing a few sentences will not change this.

---

One flawed article will also not not change anything either. I'd sooner believe a Wolof speaker about his own language. Nothing has been officially debunked. You, the author of that article, and everyone else who leaped for joy after reading it are entitled to your opinion. But it is just that, an opinion.

posted 27 May 2004 10:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
One flawed article will also not not change anything either. I'd sooner believe a Wolof speaker about his own language. Nothing has been officially debunked. You, the author of that article, and everyone else who leaped for joy after reading it are entitled to your opinion. But it is just that, an opinion.

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 27 May 2004).]

---

I don't see where that pdf I posted was flawed and where I was wrong. In these days its practiically useless to use Diop's linguistic comparison to prove the Africaness of the ancient Egyptian language, we no longer need that. I'm just arguing from the linguistic point of view that Wolof and AE aren't related. Diop's anthropological work is unquestion and him and Keita don't necessarily conflict with another, they both believe in the diversity of indigenous Africans. If you would like to have a Wolof explain this to you, go ahead, but there is no foundation of a CLOSE and I emphasise CLOSE, relationship.

posted 27 May 2004 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Here is link for some Wolof words [URL=http://www.smcm.edu/academics/hss/studyabroad/gambia/GambiaHB/2002vocabulary.htm#Color]http://www.smcm.edu/academics/hss/studyabroad/gambia/GambiaHB/2002vocabulary.htm#Color[/ URL]

Here you will see that the words for black in Wolof is called Nyool, not anything close to Kem or Khem. The notion that AE and Wolof are somehow very closely related is officially debunked, if it was very close Ehret and Greenberg would have noticed it. Diop worship and comparing a few sentences will not change this.

---

What absolute nonsense. Professor Diop was a
WOLOF intellectual, who was certainly versed in
his own language. One can grant it that a Wolof
intellectual has a firmer grasp of his native
language than say a Wolof farmer, let alone,
anyone not a Wolof speaker. I mean, do you think
the professor was inventing these words??
As a matter of fact, when I listed a Wolof word
for "black" as kem, a Wolof brother emailed me
with this correction; that it should be spelled
"khem" and more specifically be defined as
"burnt to black" and I immediately corrected this
small but significant error. I mean he was a Wolof
for God's sake, so I didn't need to consult some
"official" dictionary.
For those who feel the need to see it in an "official"
dictionary, for example, the word "kef(kof)" is in
the Peace Corps compiled dictionary:
kef - verb; to snatch
The Coptic equivalent is "keh"
The Lord Diop writes:
"Walaf, a Senegalese language spoken in the
extreme west of Africa on the Atlantic Ocean, is
perhaps as close to ancient Egyptian as Coptic. An
exhaustive study of this question has recently been
carried out...As we shall see, the kinship is
genealogical in nature.

Egyptian.............Walaf
[hieroglyphics]
kef=to grasp,........kef=seize a prey
to take a strip
(of something)

PRESENT............PRESENT
kef i..............kef na
kef ek.............kef nga
kef et.............kef na
kef ef.............kef ef na
kef es.............kef es
kef n..............kef nanu
kef ton............kef ngen
kef sen............kef nanu

PAST...............PAST
kef ni.............kef (on) na
kef (o) nek........kef (on) nga
kef (o) net........kef (on) na
kef (o) nef........kef (on) ef na
kef (o) nes........kef (on) es
kef (o) nen........kef (on) nanu
kef (o) n ten......kef (on) ngen
kef (o) n sen......kef (on) nanu

EGYPTIAN..........WALAF

feh=go away.......feh=rush off

We have the following correspondences
between the verb forms,
with identity of similarity of meaning:
all the Egyptian verb
forms, except for two, are also recorded
in Walaf.

EGYPTIAN..............WALAF
feh-ef................feh-ef
feh-es................feh-es
feh-n-ef..............feh-on-ef
feh-n-es..............feh-ones
feh-w.................feh-w
feh-wef...............feh-w-ef
feh-w-es..............feh-w-es
feh-w-a-ef............feh-il-ef
feh-w-n-es............feh-w-on-es

feh-in-ef.............feh-il-ef
feh-in-es.............feh-il-es
feh-t-ef..............feh-t-ef
feh-t-es..............feh-es
feh-tyfy f............feh-ati-fy
feh-tysy..............feh-at-ef
feh-tw-ef.............feh-tw-ef
feh-tw-es.............feh-tw-es
feh-kw(i).............feh-i-kw
feh-n-tw-ef...........feh-an-tw-ef
feh-a-tw-es...........feh-an-tw-es
feh-y-ef..............feh-y-ef
feh-y-es..............fey-y-es

EGYPTIAN.............WALAF

mer=love.............mar=lick
mer-ef...............mar-ef
mer-es...............mar-es
mer-n-el.............mar-on-ef
mer-n-es.............mar-on-es
mer-w................mar-w

mer-w-ef.............mar-w-ef
mer-w-n-f............mar-w-on-ef
mer-w-n-es...........mar-w-on-es
mer-in-ef............mar-il-ef
mer-in-es............mar-il-es
mer-t-ef.............mar-t-ef
mer-t-es.............mar-t-es
mer-tw-ef............mar-tw-ef
mer-tw-es............mar-tw-es
mer-tyfy.............mar-at-ef
mer-t-tysy...........mar-aty-es

mar-kwi..............mari-kw
mer-y-ef.............mar-y-ef
mer-y-es.............mar-y-es
mer-n-tw-ef..........mar-an-tw-ef
mer-n-tw-es..........mar-antw-es

Amen

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 27 May 2004).]

posted 27 May 2004 04:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
One flawed article will also not not change anything either. I'd sooner believe a Wolof speaker about his own language. Nothing has been officially debunked. You, the author of that article, and everyone else who leaped for joy after reading it are entitled to your opinion. But it is just that, an opinion.

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 27 May 2004).]

---

Id sooner believe a wolof speaker also, but I can not find one reference in any Dictionary or resource (In German, English, French, and I even had a frined read an Arabic on for me)that has the word Khem for burnt to black, only the word keen, I have emailed a few Gambian government agencies to get an official reply.

Even Wallys links did not have the word. I downloaded the Dictionary from his link too, no Khem word.

And Kem Im not sure I jumped out of my seat when I read it, but I was impressed with what he had writen when I had been finding the same problems when searching for the words in Wolof.

My original seach was in actual fact to find the word Kem or simular in Wolof to support a thought I have, so the outcome so far was not what I was looking for. But since no has been able to supply any support for the words other than quoting Diop I feel this is a problem. If a word could not be found in an English Dictionary that was claimed to exist, then it would be dificult for most to accept, or have I missed some problem there may be with recording the whole of the Wolof language.

posted 27 May 2004 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Id sooner believe a wolof speaker also, but I can not find one reference in any Dictionary or resource (In German, English, French, and I even had a frined read an Arabic on for me)that has the word Khem for burnt to black, only the word keen, I have emailed a few Gambian government agencies to get an official reply.

Even Wallys links did not have the word. I downloaded the Dictionary from his link too, no Khem word.

And Kem Im not sure I jumped out of my seat when I read it, but I was impressed with what he had writen when I had been finding the same problems when searching for the words in Wolof.

My original seach was in actual fact to find the word Kem or simular in Wolof to support a thought I have, so the outcome so far was not what I was looking for. But since no has been able to supply any support for the words other than quoting Diop I feel this is a problem. If a word could not be found in an English Dictionary that was claimed to exist, then it would be dificult for most to accept, or have I missed some problem there may be with recording the whole of the Wolof language.

---

posted 27 May 2004 06:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
I do not speak Wolof, but the black wife phrase in Wolof is another example of the word Kam meaning black. Also, Diop used sentence structure to relate Wolof to AE, which has already been posted. It will take far more evidence then what I have seen to prove that there is no relationship. The degree of the relationship is subject to the individual.

This aside, there were a couple of statements posted that simply are not true.

1. Ozzy: "Also, Most of these words seem to be translated from left to right RE: Kemau. Black people, as apossed to right to left which AE was writen."

AE could be written in any direction, even up and down:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/writing.htm

2. Ozzy: "In regards to the AE version, if you can supply me with a reason why when in the word kem, "burnt stick and croc tail", KM, looses the burnt stick in your examples of extended kem words like kemau Kemit, Kemet etc. The significance of the word =KM loses it meaning in the extended words when the burnt stick is removed."

The words kemmau, kemit, etc do not lose the burn stick. Here are images from Budges dictionary. Note the Kam words in question all include the burnt stick:
http://www.geocities.com/jerod_motley/kam.html

---

Kem I dont have a copy of Budges Dictionary, so I assume by what you have said that he lists J6 or I6 from Gardners dictionary as a burnt stick.
http://www.jimloy.com/hiero/gardner2.htm

As the word KM is I6 (Crocodile Tail in Gardners dict) over an M3 (A stick) I assumed that the stick being refered to was the M3. And as the stick (M3)is not reproduced in the other words only I6 is I was wondering how it can retain its full meaning as black when the full word no longer exists.

So are you saying that the I6 on its own means KM = Black. and has a phonic value of both K&M? and when included with the stick m3 means what?

If I have got this wrong please correct me.

Ozzy

posted 27 May 2004 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Seek and yee shall find.

---

Looking but aint found!

PS: Spoke to a few guys down in Santa Cruz today and they found me a Senegal guy who says he speaks Wollof, (Amazing how many African languages are down there) he said he was not aware of the word Khem or Kem, and he confirmed the word for black, beeing as it sounded to me as Nuul. I can not confirm he speaks the language as i do not, but I see no reason for they guy to lie. I asked him to tell me what black wife was in Wollof and his responce sounded nothing like what has been posted. The man is not an intelectual, he is in fact a recent imigrant (possibly not legal), but why would the every day Wolof speaker differ from the intilectual Wolof speaker such as Diop. In particular if the words are based on the ancinet aspects of the language.

I will wait for the official answer from Senegal.

Ozzy

posted 27 May 2004 07:19 PM            

http://highculture.8m.com/images/Affinities/lingustic03.gif

Lick not love! Your examples are incorrect as can be seen by your own posts and Diops presentations.

Quote Wally :
EGYPTIAN:mer on ef, "he loved"
WOLOF :maar on ef, "he loved passionately"

EGYPTIAN:mer on es, "she loved"
WOLOF :maar on es, "she loved passionately"

EGYPTIAN:mer on sen, "they loved"
WOLOF :maar on sen, "they loved passionately

Wolof Mar = Lick as is even shown in Diops own work.

Ozzy

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 27 May 2004).]

posted 27 May 2004 10:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Kem I dont have a copy of Budges Dictionary, so I assume by what you have said that he lists J6 or I6 from Gardners dictionary as a burnt stick.
http://www.jimloy.com/hiero/gardner2.htm

As the word KM is I6 (Crocodile Tail in Gardners dict) over an M3 (A stick) I assumed that the stick being refered to was the M3. And as the stick (M3)is not reproduced in the other words only I6 is I was wondering how it can retain its full meaning as black when the full word no longer exists.

So are you saying that the I6 on its own means KM = Black. and has a phonic value of both K&M? and when included with the stick m3 means what?

If I have got this wrong please correct me.

Ozzy

---

Remember I can't read AE, so I'm not sure what certain glyphs mean on their own. The only point is that the burnt stick glyph is present in many of the words the have KM in them like KMT and kemmau, as you can see in the link I posted. It is right out of Budge's text.

posted 28 May 2004 01:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
What absolute nonsense. Professor Diop was a
WOLOF intellectual, who was certainly versed in
his own language. One can grant it that a Wolof
intellectual has a firmer grasp of his native
language than say a Wolof farmer, let alone,
anyone not a Wolof speaker. I mean, do you think
the professor was inventing these words??
As a matter of fact, when I listed a Wolof word
for "black" as kem, a Wolof brother emailed me
with this correction; that it should be spelled
"khem" and more specifically be defined as
"burnt to black" and I immediately corrected this
small but significant error. I mean he was a Wolof
for God's sake, so I didn't need to consult some
"official" dictionary.
For those who feel the need to see it in an "official"
dictionary, for example, the word "kef(kof)" is in
the Peace Corps compiled dictionary:
kef - verb; to snatch
The Coptic equivalent is "keh"
The Lord Diop writes:
"Walaf, a Senegalese language spoken in the
extreme west of Africa on the Atlantic Ocean, is
perhaps as close to ancient Egyptian as Coptic. An
exhaustive study of this question has recently been
carried out...As we shall see, the kinship is
genealogical in nature.

Egyptian.............Walaf
[hieroglyphics]
kef=to grasp,........kef=seize a prey
to take a strip
(of something)

PRESENT............PRESENT
kef i..............kef na
kef ek.............kef nga
kef et.............kef na
kef ef.............kef ef na
kef es.............kef es
kef n..............kef nanu
kef ton............kef ngen
kef sen............kef nanu

PAST...............PAST
kef ni.............kef (on) na
kef (o) nek........kef (on) nga
kef (o) net........kef (on) na
kef (o) nef........kef (on) ef na
kef (o) nes........kef (on) es
kef (o) nen........kef (on) nanu
kef (o) n ten......kef (on) ngen
kef (o) n sen......kef (on) nanu

EGYPTIAN..........WALAF

feh=go away.......feh=rush off

We have the following correspondences
between the verb forms,
with identity of similarity of meaning:
all the Egyptian verb
forms, except for two, are also recorded
in Walaf.

EGYPTIAN..............WALAF
feh-ef................feh-ef
feh-es................feh-es
feh-n-ef..............feh-on-ef
feh-n-es..............feh-ones
feh-w.................feh-w
feh-wef...............feh-w-ef
feh-w-es..............feh-w-es
feh-w-a-ef............feh-il-ef
feh-w-n-es............feh-w-on-es

feh-in-ef.............feh-il-ef
feh-in-es.............feh-il-es
feh-t-ef..............feh-t-ef
feh-t-es..............feh-es
feh-tyfy f............feh-ati-fy
feh-tysy..............feh-at-ef
feh-tw-ef.............feh-tw-ef
feh-tw-es.............feh-tw-es
feh-kw(i).............feh-i-kw
feh-n-tw-ef...........feh-an-tw-ef
feh-a-tw-es...........feh-an-tw-es
feh-y-ef..............feh-y-ef
feh-y-es..............fey-y-es

EGYPTIAN.............WALAF

mer=love.............mar=lick
mer-ef...............mar-ef
mer-es...............mar-es
mer-n-el.............mar-on-ef
mer-n-es.............mar-on-es
mer-w................mar-w

mer-w-ef.............mar-w-ef
mer-w-n-f............mar-w-on-ef
mer-w-n-es...........mar-w-on-es
mer-in-ef............mar-il-ef
mer-in-es............mar-il-es
mer-t-ef.............mar-t-ef
mer-t-es.............mar-t-es
mer-tw-ef............mar-tw-ef
mer-tw-es............mar-tw-es
mer-tyfy.............mar-at-ef
mer-t-tysy...........mar-aty-es

mar-kwi..............mari-kw
mer-y-ef.............mar-y-ef
mer-y-es.............mar-y-es
mer-n-tw-ef..........mar-an-tw-ef
mer-n-tw-es..........mar-antw-es

Amen

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 27 May 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 27 May 2004).]

---

Its evident your are blinded by Diop worship. I checked 3 different sources for what black meant in Wolof and they all said Nyool. Ozzy even asked a Wolof speaker and he said something similar to it. Why are you so insistent on what Diop said when in this day and age its not needed? AE is an African language, notz to mention it also had numerous Nilo-Saharan loan words in its vocabulary indicating early contact with speakers from the south and west of Egypt, which isn't surprising. The language is African, it doesn't take Diop worship to confirm that and I am in no way trying to de-Africanize AE, by posting that pdf which says it more related to Chadic than Wolof how am I de-Africanizing it? Afrasian languages started and evolved from Africa, not the outside of Africa.

posted 28 May 2004 02:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Its evident your are blinded by Diop worship. I checked 3 different sources for what black meant in Wolof and they all said Nyool. Ozzy even asked a Wolof speaker and he said something similar to it. Why are you so insistent on what Diop said when in this day and age its not needed? AE is an African language, notz to mention it also had numerous Nilo-Saharan loan words in its vocabulary indicating early contact with speakers from the south and west of Egypt, which isn't surprising. The language is African, it doesn't take Diop worship to confirm that and I am in no way trying to de-Africanize AE, by posting that pdf which says it more related to Chadic than Wolof how am I de-Africanizing it? Afrasian languages started and evolved from Africa, not the outside of Africa.

---

I have a difficult time understanding both you and Ozzy
on this subject.

Professor Diop was a WOLOF intellectual, who was certainly
versed in his own language. One can grant it that a Wolof
intellectual has a firmer grasp of his native language than say a
Wolof farmer, let alone, anyone not a Wolof speaker. You are
accusing the late professor of inventing these words! That is
exactly what you are accusing him of. He says the words Kem
and Khem are legitimate words, and you say they aren't. Diop
also translated Einstein's theory of relativity into Wolof. I think
I'll go with Diop's analysis, thank you very much. Respecting
someone's genius is hardly hero worship. And accusing someone
of worshiping a scholar is hardly an argument.

And Ozzy seems to think that there's a contradiction between
Mar - "to lick" and Maar - "to love passionately" ; they are two
different words! - but with the same verbal conjugation for heaven's
sake. And he too, indirectly, doubts Diop's veracity.

The following analysis is by Clyde Winters at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/theory2.htm

---The use of these suffuxial pronouns in Egyptian and Black
African languages is also similar.
Egyptian: i i n i , 'I have come'
Mboshi : i me yaa, "I have come"
Egyptian: mr n f, "he loved"
Wolof : maar on ef, "he loved madly"
Egyptian: mr n s, "she loved"
Wolof : maar on es, "she loved madly"
Egyptian: mr n sn, "they loved"
Wolof : maar on sen, they loved madly"
The Wolof term maar , and the pronouns ef, es, and sen are
discussed by the following authors.
T. Obenga, "Le "Chamito-semitique" n'existe pas", <ANKH,
1 (1992), pp.51-58.
A. Anselin, Pour une morphologie elementaire du negro-
africain". <>
C.A. Diop, <Parente genetique de l'egyptien pharaonique et
des langues negro-africaines. Inititions et etudes africaines,
No.32, IFAN-NEA, 1977
C.A. Diop,
les langues negro-Africanes modernes. Presence Africaine, 1988.
The Egyptian and Wolof languages also share similar kinship
terms.
Egyptian Wolof
sen brother sen
snt sister san
sa son sa Baol (son of the Baol)
itf father itef
i3yt 'old female' yaay mother
wtw 'oldest son' watw 'given succesor
st spouce set
maga 'veteran' mag 'aged person'
The Wolof and Egyptians also share institutional terms.
Egyptian Wolof
p3 wr 'the grand' bwr 'the king'
bw-wr 'that which is grand' bwr 'the king'
ndm 'the throne' ndam 'the glory'
dm 'to be grand' damw 'glorified'
pera^a 'Pharoah' fari 'supreme king'
niwt citizen nit
pe capital, King's capital pey
m3't justice mat
There are also cognate Egyptian and Black African terms in other
languages. For example, there are many cognate Egyptian and Bantu terms.

Egyptian Mbochi
kkw darkness koko
ktt to work, cultivate kye
ska numerous, many saa, saka
s man si
sh lake, pond saa
ii to come, arrive yaa
km black kama
ba 'soul' ba 'possessing spirit'
mm 'to remain, to be firm' masna "solidly established'

Afrocentric linguists do not accept the Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic
hypothesis. These linguist believe that Egyptian is a Black African
language. These linguist recognize that the Egyptians ruled
Palestine for thousands of years. As a result, they claim that
many Egyptian loan words in Hebrew and Arabic, may be the result
of Egyptian loan words borrowed by the Cananites, Hebrews and etc.
during this period of Egyptian colonialism.---

posted 28 May 2004 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Remember I can't read AE, so I'm not sure what certain glyphs mean on their own. The only point is that the burnt stick glyph is present in many of the words the have KM in them like KMT and kemmau, as you can see in the link I posted. It is right out of Budge's text.

What does the burnt stick mean? I don't know. I know that AE's used determinants in their writing to help the reader determine the meaning of a word, so the burnt stick may be one of those and not actually represent a sound.

---

Ive tried to find a refernce to Budge but can not on the net anyone have a link.

The Burnt stick as you call it Kem, is refered to as the tail of a Ccrocodile in Gardners list, that is not what i was refering to as a stick.. And all other resources I have looked at also list it as an animal part, (Crocodile tail) So I think this is were we our communication is breaking down. There is a glyph which is that of a stick, that is under the other glyph which I call the crocodile tail (I6),

These two are siad according to Wally and some other sources to represent Burnt to black or burnt stick. This is what I believed you were refering to as meaning KM.

Can someone direct me to Budges list or post his description of the Gardner equvelent of I6 or J6 which are the same glyph. This will clear it up for me.

Kem if you follow this link you will see Gardner does not list the glyph as a burnt stick. See I6.
http://www.arcom.com.au/~vincent/signlistF-M.htm

Ozzy

posted 28 May 2004 07:33 PM            

Wolof in Senegal has more than 5 dialects which include BAOL, CAYOR, DYOLOF (DJOLOF, JOLOF), LEBOU (LEBU), JANDER. Each has their own regional differences, and influences from French and Netherlands (Dutch) Languages.

Wolof in Gambia is marginally different. So those words may exist in the one or more of the Senegal dialects but are not consistent with all Dialects of spoken Wolof. In this case the words can not be considered genological to the Wolof language if they are used.

Please note Wally, “The Wolof language is predominantly an urban language” A fact sited by the Senegal government themselves! and there is no reason why an intellectual (Who would more likely speak French) would have a greater grasp of the Wolof language than a farmer. In fact it would most likely be the opposite.

The U.S. Peace Corps Dictionary is used as a teaching resource and is approved by the Senegal Government

I have not received a response from Senegal. Ministry of education Mr. M. Moustapha SOURANG whom I emailed regarding the Senegal national approved dictionary and words not included in dictionaries I have access to. No response so far. If anyone else feels the need the address is below. http://www.education.gouv.sn

Lastly, Wolofonline.com who Wally recommended as a reference, has just advised me to use the Us. Peace Corps Dictionary. And was not able to give me any explanation as the any of the other words Wally has used.
I have also not been able to find any reference apart from the Dutch influence for the word Maar, even in Diops work, which I admit I have limited resources with, but I can only find him referring to “Mar” which I have given a translation for already. If someone has some resources I can read were the word Maar is used by diop, I would appreciate it. So far I have found no organization which will support neither Wally’s posts, nor any of the words which do not have representations in the dictionaries I have access to?
Just a note: Even in Diops presentation to the UNESCO, he compared the word Mar, he did not use Maar.
Again I am willing to be proven incorrect if resources can be provided.

PS: The Australian national Archives retains a large librery of writen and film works of native Wolof speakers, and no reference to Khem could be found.

Ozzy

posted 28 May 2004 10:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Ive tried to find a refernce to Budge but can not on the net anyone have a link.

The Burnt stick as you call it Kem, is refered to as the tail of a Ccrocodile in Gardners list, that is not what i was refering to as a stick.. And all other resources I have looked at also list it as an animal part, (Crocodile tail) So I think this is were we our communication is breaking down. There is a glyph which is that of a stick, that is under the other glyph which I call the crocodile tail (I6),

These two are siad according to Wally and some other sources to represent Burnt to black or burnt stick. This is what I believed you were refering to as meaning KM.

Can someone direct me to Budges list or post his description of the Gardner equvelent of I6 or J6 which are the same glyph. This will clear it up for me.

Kem if you follow this link you will see Gardner does not list the glyph as a burnt stick. See I6.
http://www.arcom.com.au/~vincent/signlistF-M.htm

Ozzy

---

The glyph I was referring to is definitely not the crocodile tail. In the images from Budges book, the words Kami, Kamm, Kam-t, Kammau all begin with the burnt stick as the first symbol if reading from left to right. That croc tail is a different glyph.

posted 29 May 2004 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
The glyph I was referring to is definitely not the crocodile tail. In the images from Budges book, the words Kami, Kamm, Kam-t, Kammau all begin with the burnt stick as the first symbol if reading from left to right. That croc tail is a different glyph.

If you would like to find this text, it is taken directly from Budge's AE dictionary.
http://www.geocities.com/jerod_motley/kam.html

---

Ok Kem, I have double checked to make sure I was correct. The first symble on the left of the Kam word in the link you have posted is "I6" from Gardiners list, the section "I" is of reptiles,amphibiouse animals and parts of, etc.

The glyph which you call a burnt stick is listed in the Garnier list as "I6" a crocodile or reptile tail, not a stick of any kind. I have been told that no other lists are widely used, so there is no list containing the first glyph on the left of the kam words you have posted which refer to the glyph as a stick.

This is why i was confused as to what you were saying.

I have seen, although only on Wallys site a glyph combonation of the "I6" and a stick or twig simble called "M3" (Gardiners list) which he states means "burnt to Black". This is the stick I assumed you were talking about as that is the only representation of a stick included with the "I6" glyph.

See wallys page for this glyph.

If you have another reference which list this glyph as a stick can you direct me to it please.

Ozzy

posted 29 May 2004 11:30 PM            

Secondly, this guy Ozzy claims to not work for some secret government agency, but put a great deal of time and effort into calling several government agencies in an attempt to try to discredit the great work of Cheik Anta Diop. I took the time to read this lengthy paper before responding, only to come the the conclusion that in all his attempts to discredit Anta Diop, Russell Shuh did nothing but lend further credence to Diop's work, by proving himself how closely the Wolof and Egyptian language IS related. (this has been done to Anta Diop before). However he did do an excellent job at discrediting the work of Carl Meinhof by showing how racially motivated his work was.

Next in regards to KMT-kemet meaning black people or land of blacks, has already been determnined by all Egyptologist, no need to call every African Government for that. Its how they have used racism and word play, to try to undermine how the Egyptians viewed themselves. These so-called Egyptologist would lead you to believe, that the Egyptians called themselves such, because of the Black color of their soil. Now keep in mind, the soil was only black along the nile, however the entire country was called Kemet, when we all know the color of the soil in 85% of Egypt is sandy desert. Why not just call yourselves "desert people" or "river people". Interesting to note, almost every racist writer that has deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphics almost always fail to note, that immediately following the symbols for black (a burnt log) are the symbols of man and woman, which indicate people, hence "black people", or immediately following kemet, are the symbol for city or town, hence "black town, or city of blacks", never, ever, is the symbol for "land" which means "ta" succeeded by the word Kemet, so how they can infer that the Egyptians are referring to the color of their soil "land" literally, in what is meant by KMT-kemet.
see:

http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage9.htm

for more evidence of this blatant racism.

Further the name Egypt itself is derived from the Greek word Agyptos, which meant "land of burnt faces" or " land of faces burnt by the sun"

So if you take it from the Ancient Egyptians themselves or the Ancient Greeks (who are the first "outsiders" to record the history of the Egyptians, either way you come up with, lets say it in unison, "BLACK FOLKS". lol.

Now back to my future husband Wally :-),
you keep on educating them, I have your back
;-)

posted 30 May 2004 12:59 AM            

I am an Egyptian myself and I agree that most people in Upper Egypt would be considered ''black'';while people in Lower Egypt was more heotrgenous. Truth is that you don't need to translate the word Km to mean black skin to show that black people live in ancient Egypt. Just go to modern Upper Egypt and view assorted Aswani or Luxor Egyptians to see this is apparent.

By the way,Aegyptos does not mean burnt feet or face. Aegyptos comes from the word Hikuptah meaning a pyramid complex in Men-Nefer.

The diversity you see from North to south in Egypt has always existed and goes into deep antiquity.

It is firm established by the Egyptology community that the African elmenent was apparent since pre-dyanstic times manifestated in the Badarian,Naqada,and Faiyum cultures. From these populations combined with the northern populations of Merimede,Omari,Maadi and others formed the Dyanstic Egyptians.

The first three dyansties came from deep within southern Egypt;while the dyansties of V,VI,and VII came from northern Egypt. Despite having northern Egyptian origins many of these people had close relatives and intermarried with southern Egyptians.

posted 30 May 2004 01:05 AM            

Secondly I have taken the time to read the lengthy article, and have come to the consclusion that in all his attempts to disprove Cheika Anta Diop, this guy has actually made Diop's work more credible.Not supprisingly this type of thing has been done to the great work of Diop before. The only thing that any logic minded reader can conclude after reading this article is that the Wolof language does in fact relate to the Egyptian language, and furthermore, as this Author has so eagerly proven, the Wolof language relates to the English language as well. All this author did was prove that the Wolof language relates to other languages as well, he did absolutely NOTHING to show that IT DID NOT relate to the Egyptian language. A poorly written critique, in that it did not show what it was set out to do, and that was to prove that the Wolof language did not relate to the English language.

Last but not least, this guy Ozzy claims that he is not part of some secret government agency, yet he puts a great deal of effort in trying to disconnect Egypt from its "blackness" by contacting "all these governmental agencies in Africa". Ozzy, how many African languages do you speak, I mean honestly did you hire a translator to "speak" to all the different African entities, no let me guess, every government agency you talked with had an English speaking translator answering for them, and this English speaking translator, was also fluent in the other several hundred languages spoken in that particular country. Please give it a break, you're making a complete fool of yourself.

As far as the word Kemet meaning "black", you can look in any English Encyclopedia, why call around Africa. Whats at issue is not whether the word means black, that has already been determined by the hieroglyphic of "burning charcoal", which signifies black. But the controversy lies in were they referring to the color of their soil, or the color of their skin? Most non racist Egyptologist agree, that they are referring to the color of their skin. As always superceded by the hieroglyph for KMT-kemet, is the hieroglyph for "people" which is a man and a woman, or the hieroglyph for the word city, or town, which together means black city, or town of blacks, or black people. Never do you see the hieroglyph symbol for soil, which is denoted by the symbol for land. so without being racially biased in can be inferred that the Egyptians called themselves "black people" or "city of blacks". Even when the Ancient Greeks entered the continent of Africa, they called the entire continent "Aithiops" which meant "Land of Burnt Faces" or "land of Black people", do you honestly think the Greeks were not aware that Egypt was on the continent of Africa??????

Since we all know that over 85% of the soil in Egypt is actually red dessert and NOT black soil, whenever the Egyptians described their soil, they allways used the hieroglyph that symbolized dessert, and hence the name "Deshret", is always preceded by the symbol for land, as in soil. And not the word or symbol for black.

Further Aegyptus" derives from "ht-ka-ptah", which the Egyptians later called themselves, which mean "temple for Ptah", the Egyptians made their ancestor dieties. And Ptah was one of their first gods, and he is almost always depicted as "jet black in skin color, in comparison to their brown skin color", in this sense they are letting you know they descended from the jet black people of Nubia, where the same god is worshipped.

posted 30 May 2004 02:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
This debate on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is rather trite. Is there nothing else about Egypt that fasinates you besides what their ethnic compostion was.

I am an Egyptian myself and I agree that most people in Upper Egypt would be considered ''black'';while people in Lower Egypt was more heotrgenous. Truth is that you don't need to translate the word Km to mean black skin to show that black people live in ancient Egypt. Just go to modern Upper Egypt and view assorted Aswani or Luxor Egyptians to see this is apparent.

By the way,Aegyptos does not mean burnt feet or face. Aegyptos comes from the word Hikuptah meaning a pyramid complex in Men-Nefer.

The diversity you see from North to south in Egypt has always existed and goes into deep antiquity.

It is firm established by the Egyptology community that the African elmenent was apparent since pre-dyanstic times manifestated in the Badarian,Naqada,and Faiyum cultures. From these populations combined with the northern populations of Merimede,Omari,Maadi and others formed the Dyanstic Egyptians.

The first three dyansties came from deep within southern Egypt;while the dyansties of V,VI,and VII came from northern Egypt. Despite having northern Egyptian origins many of these people had close relatives and intermarried with southern Egyptians.

---

posted 30 May 2004 02:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
First I would like to say that I have no idea who Wally is or what he even looks like, but over the course of reading his work I think I have fallen in love with him,(or maybe just his passion :-)j/k). Please email me Wally at bidwhatuhave@yahoo.com.

---

posted 30 May 2004 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I have never criticized Diop's work, but he did make some flaws as in calling Phoenicians and Carthaginians Negroes, saying mores were not black(some were, some were not) and calling southern Indians Negroes.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 30 May 2004 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I have never criticized Diop's work, but he did make some flaws as in calling Phoenicians and Carthaginians Negroes, saying mores were not black(some were, some were not) and calling southern Indians Negroes.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 30 May 2004 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Phoencicians were certainly a semetic people, with perhaps an African elite elemement. Carthanginians were heterogenous with man "Negroes", I don't know if this makes them a "Negroe" people or not, but certainly many white racialists today would consider Brazil a "Negroe" nation. Some current Southern Indians and ancient inhabitants of Sumer and Mohenjo Darro/Harrapa were Australoid. Some Sumerians were semitic as well, and as they abstract I posted indicates the original semites may have been African.

---

i don't know for sure if the Phoenicians had an "Negro" elite element, but they were distinct for the most part from blacks, neither were they white also.

Australoids are 2blacjk" as in black skinned but possess enough skeletal differences to be grouped as a separate race. To a certain point it is all subjective, but there is a clear difference between black Africans and australoids. With black Africans and Melenesians its very difficult and in fact impossible at time to distinguish the two.

Diop was truly an icon at a time when African history was very distorted and I would be a fool to the highest degree to call his work total trash, but he made some mistakes, mistakes very minor not major. Most of what he did paved the way for people like Keita, who have a much more clearer understanding of the diversity of African people.

posted 30 May 2004 12:15 PM            

Most of Charles Darwins work, has been proven wrong today. Some of Sigmund Freud's work has been proven wrong today. Some of Albert Einstein's work has been proven wrong today. I dont see your point.

Yes I do have a couple of Cheikh Anta Diop's books in my library collection. I have been a long admirer for being a pioneer in a sense of challenging White Supremacy, (that's still apparent, according to some of these posts) and exploring Egypt extensively from a Black African perspective.

Like many of us, Anta Diop grew tired of the concept that the "white man" came to Africa to "civilize" us barbaric blacks, and that historically blacks have made no contributions to society. Many Egyptologist before him were inbred even if self-consciously with a racist ideology of white supremacy, and that the "white man" even in Ancient times went to far away lands to "civilize" the barbaric races of blacks. When the fact is, even if you leave the controversial EGYPT out of the equation, there was no other civilization on earth during that period that mirrored the Egyptian civilization like that of the Nubians. Only recently in the 20th century has Archaeologists began excavating those sites that have long been ignored. And these recent discoveries challenged by Anta Diop himself, have proven that the Nubian culture (particularly the A-group0 superceded Egypt in technology by 200 years. There is no other country on earth that have the number of pyramids built in Nubia, and new evidence has shown that it is very possible that the First Dynasty in Egypt was started by or at least influenced by its Nubian neighbors.

posted 30 May 2004 12:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Diop was truly an icon at a time when African history was very distorted and I would be a fool to the highest degree to call his work total trash, but he made some mistakes, mistakes very minor not major. Most of what he did paved the way for people like Keita, who have a much more clearer understanding of the diversity of African people.

---

Thought Writes:

I agree and no one has a right to try and label someone who respectfully probes Diops work as a Eurocentrist. Diop was a forerunner in this field and indeed paved the way, but he was not infallable.

posted 30 May 2004 03:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I agree and no one has a right to try and label someone who respectfully probes Diops work as a Eurocentrist. Diop was a forerunner in this field and indeed paved the way, but he was not infallable.

On the Phonecians you should read some of the material from the "People of Gezer". I will attempt to locate this an post it.

---

I agree and if you find that info please post it. I admit I'm mostly ignorant to knowledge about Phoenicians.

posted 30 May 2004 03:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b] Have you even read some of Diop's work for yourself? Not all of what he said was wrong, but there were some things he said back then that have been proven to be wrong today.

Most of Charles Darwins work, has been proven wrong today. Some of Sigmund Freud's work has been proven wrong today. Some of Albert Einstein's work has been proven wrong today. I dont see your point.

Yes I do have a couple of Cheikh Anta Diop's books in my library collection. I have been a long admirer for being a pioneer in a sense of challenging White Supremacy, (that's still apparent, according to some of these posts) and exploring Egypt extensively from a Black African perspective.

Like many of us, Anta Diop grew tired of the concept that the "white man" came to Africa to "civilize" us barbaric blacks, and that historically blacks have made no contributions to society. Many Egyptologist before him were inbred even if self-consciously with a racist ideology of white supremacy, and that the "white man" even in Ancient times went to far away lands to "civilize" the barbaric races of blacks. When the fact is, even if you leave the controversial EGYPT out of the equation, there was no other civilization on earth during that period that mirrored the Egyptian civilization like that of the Nubians. Only recently in the 20th century has Archaeologists began excavating those sites that have long been ignored. And these recent discoveries challenged by Anta Diop himself, have proven that the Nubian culture (particularly the A-group0 superceded Egypt in technology by 200 years. There is no other country on earth that have the number of pyramids built in Nubia, and new evidence has shown that it is very possible that the First Dynasty in Egypt was started by or at least influenced by its Nubian neighbors.

I commend Anta Diop for showing that even in antiquity Blacks were makng contributions to the world. It really annoys me, this white superiority complex that lives in this deep denial that no other race but themselves ventured off their continent to explore the world. I will not exclude Arab caucasians, as they too have oppressed Blacks, not just Europeans. They would all like us to believe, that all these outsiders came to Africa to make contibutions to society, yet with te exception of slavery, blacks were confined to the continent of Africa, we didnt have the common sense to go out of Africa to explore the rest of the world. When evertime scientist discover a negroid type skull in other parts of the world, its quickly diminished as having been a slave, and not a true negroid explorer. Even with the controversial dicussions here on Egypt, I have not read a post by one single black person that discredits the contributions whites made to Egyptian, so why is it that every single time an argument is made on behalf of a black contribution to Egyptian society, everyone goes out of their way, including "CALLING GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES-HOW ABSURD" to try to discredit the contributions of Blacks. If thats not racist, I dont know what is.[/B]

---

I agree with everything you said, especially about the Arab involvement with the slave trade, plus the involvement of native Africans themselves. I am of both Hausa and Kanuri descent,my people were guilty of it, though they had no knowledge of what was happening with those they sold, but since I was born in America(Brooklyn NY) I identify as African-American.

posted 30 May 2004 07:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
originally posted by S. Mohammad
[b] I am of both Hausa and Kanuri descent

I've always envied Africans that can trace what tribe they came from. Unfortunately its not the case with most of us misplaced African Americans.[/B]

---

Thought Writes;

posted 31 May 2004 05:06 PM            

In this regard I took Wallys advice and asked a Wolof speaker. In fact I asked many. For your peace of mind I contacted these "Agencies" in French, and English as im sure you know I do not speak Wolof. And I spoke to the Wolof speaker here in Tenerife in Spanish. Im a bit miffed at the suggestion by Wally that the opinion of a non intelectual Wolof speaker regarding simple Wolof words can be disregarded, I was told to ask a Wolof speaker, so I did!

As S.Mohammad has pointed out none of this detracts from the word Diop has done, but it does bring to question many of the examples given here.

Two of these I contacted were references given on this thread by Wally as support for his argument, both failed to support his argument, as have so far all other resources I have made an attempt to contact.

So far no resources have been presented to support Wallys posts. I find that needs to be questioned.

I am still also trying to find an original reference to (I6) of gardners list as burnt wood. No one has given reference to this either. I think when this is given such meaning it should be backed by presenting the origins for this defenition. I have found it in Gardners list as I6, a tail of a reptile or crocodile, I can not find any other reference, again if Budge has his own list and lists it as a burnt stick please post! I have asked this before with no responce. In this case this also has to be questioned!

Ozzy.

posted 31 May 2004 07:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Ok Kem, I have double checked to make sure I was correct. The first symble on the left of the Kam word in the link you have posted is "I6" from Gardiners list, the section "I" is of reptiles,amphibiouse animals and parts of, etc.

The glyph which you call a burnt stick is listed in the Garnier list as "I6" a crocodile or reptile tail, not a stick of any kind. I have been told that no other lists are widely used, so there is no list containing the first glyph on the left of the kam words you have posted which refer to the glyph as a stick.

This is why i was confused as to what you were saying.

I have seen, although only on Wallys site a glyph combonation of the "I6" and a stick or twig simble called "M3" (Gardiners list) which he states means "burnt to Black". This is the stick I assumed you were talking about as that is the only representation of a stick included with the "I6" glyph.

See wallys page for this glyph.

If you have another reference which list this glyph as a stick can you direct me to it please.

Ozzy

---

Ozzy, I did some checking to see what was going on and I see the source of the confusion. The image that I posted from Budge's text was indeed the same glyph you mentioned from Gardiner's text. Budge's rendition looked very different, that's why I thought we were discussing different glyphs.

Just to give you some background on my exposure to the glyph in question, I read somewhere (don't ask me where because this was some time ago), that the glyph for the word KMT included a burnt stick. So I looked in a book that I had called "Egyptian Hieroglyphics, How to read and Write Them", by Stephane Rossini. The glyph I saw was this:

Here's the link if the img doesn't show up: http://www.geocities.com/jerod_motley/
(For some reason Yahoo isn't showing the img. Here's a new link.)

Seeing this glyph confirmed to me that the KMT did indeed include the burnt stick, as did many other KM words. Now it seems that Gardiner interprets this glyph as a croc tail. I hope he has some evidence for that claim, because it sure doesn't look like a tail.

I have not seen the glyph as drawn by AE's, only in texts. And while the Gardiner and Rossini version look the same, none of the three versions look like tails to me, but maybe I'm just blinded. Anyway, I'm curious to know what glyph you were referring to as the burnt stick, because I may have been wrong about which glyph was the burnt stick all along?

posted 31 May 2004 08:41 PM            

I do not however know at this stage what the source for this quote is. Ill let you know.

posted 31 May 2004 09:52 PM            

As I said before this guys article did not do much at all to discredit Anta Diop, all he did was prove that the Wolog language is related to other languages as well. Diop never asserted that the Wolof language is "directly" derived from AE, but he did show how closely they were related, and this has yet to be discredited by anyone.

Take for example the English language, which is derived from the Germanic tribes anglo-saxon, that conquered England. When England was conquered by the Normans, many words of French/latin origin entered into the vocabulary. And Latin was the language spoken by the clergy of England, there were 3 different language spoken in England at one period. Until the 12th century, English became "standardized" and all these languages combined to make up the language we use today.

With this said, I can take an English word, with French origins, but this does not discredit the Germanic origins of other words.

So why would the the Fulu origins of Wolof words discredit the AE origins of others.

Like Wally said, I would lend more credibility to a speaker of Wolof, such as Diop himself, than I would to this Author, who is an outsider trying to dicipher a language that is foreign to him.

posted 01 June 2004 02:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Ozzy how petty of you and "your followers" to try to discredit the great work of Anta Diop with just one word "kemet".

As I said before this guys article did not do much at all to discredit Anta Diop, all he did was prove that the Wolog language is related to other languages as well. Diop never asserted that the Wolof language is "directly" derived from AE, but he did show how closely they were related, and this has yet to be discredited by anyone.

Take for example the English language, which is derived from the Germanic tribes anglo-saxon, that conquered England. When England was conquered by the Normans, many words of French/latin origin entered into the vocabulary. And Latin was the language spoken by the clergy of England, there were 3 different language spoken in England at one period. Until the 12th century, English became "standardized" and all these languages combined to make up the language we use today.

With this said, I can take an English word, with French origins, but this does not discredit the Germanic origins of other words.

So why would the the Fulu origins of Wolof words discredit the AE origins of others.

Like Wally said, I would lend more credibility to a speaker of Wolof, such as Diop himself, than I would to this Author, who is an outsider trying to dicipher a language that is foreign to him.

What this author may not understand, is that just like english, spanish, and chinese, there may be different dialects of the Wolof.

---

posted 01 June 2004 02:04 PM            

"The opposition of many Eurocentric scholars to Afrocentric -ism results from white hostility to Diop's idea of a Black Egypt, and the view that Egyptians spoke an African ,rather than Afro-Asiatic language."

"Recently, Eurocentric American scholars have alleged to write reviews of Diop's recent book (Diop 1991). Although these reviewers mention the work of Diop in their articles, they never review his work properly, because they lack the ability to understand the many disciplines that Diop has mastered.(Lefkowitz 1992; Baines 1991)"

"For example Lefkowitz (1992) in The New Republic, summarizes

Diop (1974) but never presents any evidence to dispute the findings of Diop. The most popular "review" of Diop (1991) was done by Baines (1991) review in the New York Times Book Review. In this "review" Baines (1991) claims that "...the evidence and reasoning used to support the arguments are often unsound".

Instead of addressing the evidence Diop (1991) presents of the African role in the rise of civilization that he alleges is "unsound", he is asking the reader to reject Diop's thesis without refutation of specific evidence presented by Diop of the
African contributions to Science and Philosophy. Baines (l991)"

I'm tired of rep
eating myself, THIS GUY DID NOT PROVE THAT THE WOLOF LANGUAGE WAS NOT RELATED TO THE AE.

This "measly" article is no where near, and I repeat, NO WHERE NEAR, the extensive work done by Cheikh Anta Diop. PERIOD!

posted 01 June 2004 02:48 PM            

The following quote from Insight Guides is on my website:
"According to the late Cheikh Anta Diop, the great
Senegalese historian and anthropologist, the main groups of
people in Senegambia have their origins in Ancient Egypt. To
support his theory, Diop draws on a number of disciplines from
archaeology to linguistics, and a variety of sources from
African oral traditions to the writings of Greeks and Arabs."
Insight Guides: The Gambia and Senegal, 1996 APA
Publications (HK) Ltd, Houghton Mifflin Company

Also as Diop points out in the General History of Africa
the construct of kem is:
(also on my website)
-- The Egyptians depicted a piece of burning charcoal for
the word black. It is the strongest word for black in the
language. It literally means "burnt black'" as it also does
in contemporary Wolof. Some may want to quibble by calling
it a fire stick, so what's the "Kemical" result of a burnt stick?
Correct charcoal. In other instances the word was written
with crocodile scales. Both instances, a strong term for
black wouldn't you say?

Hausa belongs to the same language grouping as Oromo,
Ancient Egyptian, Beja, etc.
No one denies that. Diop's work is crucial in redefining
African languages (decolonizing). It's that simple.

posted 01 June 2004 03:25 PM            

He used this same method to show the relationship to AE languanges and "Asian" languages.

However, I HAVE YET TO READ A REVIEW THAT CRITICIZES THE "ASIAN" COMPARISON."

And ask yourselves, how can you criticize ONLY the African component of his work, without showing "prejudice".

Last, but most importantly, let the readers of this post, go directly to page 12 of this article, and read what the author himself has noted " The Wolof language is REALLY genetically related to FULA", then lets take the reader to the Encyclopedia, and see what the FULA language is genetically related to, and we find....we find that the Fula are:

1.Fula are settled in Bornu, Bagirmi, Wadai and the upper Nile Valley
2.Originally herdsmen in the western and central Sudan
3.they are a mixture of Berber and Negro
4.In the district of Senegal known as Fuladugu or Fula Land, where the purest types of the race are found, the people are of a reddish brown or light chestnut color, with oval faces, ringlety or even smooth hair, never woolly, straight and even aquiline noses, delicately shaped lips and regular features quite differentiating them from the Negro type. (sounds like a discription of an Egyptian, does it not).

and this is the part, that will really get you....

5.The Fula language has as yet found no place in any African linguistic family. In its rudiments it is akin to the Hamito-Semitic group

So in conclusion, if as this author has shown, the Wolof language "really" descended from the Fula language, and the Fula language "really" descended from the Hamito-Semitic language, we can easily assume that the Wolof language, finally descended from the Hamito-Semtic languange.

And just so everyone is on the same page, the AE language was guess what? thats right "Hamito-Semitic"

reference http://75.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FU/FULA.htm

posted 01 June 2004 04:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Furthermore, Diop used what is called a "comparative method" to show the relationship between African languages and Egyptian languages.

He used this same method to show the relationship to AE languanges and "Asian" languages.

However, I HAVE YET TO READ A REVIEW THAT CRITICIZES THE "ASIAN" COMPARISON."

And ask yourselves, how can you criticize ONLY the African component of his work, without showing "prejudice".

[b] Last, but most importantly, let the readers of this post, go directly to page 12 of this article, and read what the author himself has noted " The Wolof language is REALLY genetically related to FULA", then lets take the reader to the Encyclopedia, and see what the FULA language is genetically related to, and we find....we find that the Fula are:

1.Fula are settled in Bornu, Bagirmi, Wadai and the upper Nile Valley
2.Originally herdsmen in the western and central Sudan
3.they are a mixture of Berber and Negro
4.In the district of Senegal known as Fuladugu or Fula Land, where the purest types of the race are found, the people are of a reddish brown or light chestnut color, with oval faces, ringlety or even smooth hair, never woolly, straight and even aquiline noses, delicately shaped lips and regular features quite differentiating them from the Negro type. (sounds like a discription of an Egyptian, does it not).

and this is the part, that will really get you....

5.The Fula language has as yet found no place in any African linguistic family. In its rudiments it is akin to the Hamito-Semitic group

So in conclusion, if as this author has shown, the Wolof language "really" descended from the Fula language, and the Fula language "really" descended from the Hamito-Semitic language, we can easily assume that the Wolof language, finally descended from the Hamito-Semtic languange.

And just so everyone is on the same page, the AE language was guess what? thats right "Hamito-Semitic"

reference http://75.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FU/FULA.htm

1.[/B]

---

Total rubbish you just posted without even knowing what you're even talking about. Now lets start. Fula is not an Hamitic language. That reference you posted on the Fula was exactly the kind of rubbish Diop was refuting. It was largely based on Karl Meinhoff's long debunked Hamitic theory. The classification of Fula as Hamitic by Meinhoff had nothing to do with languages. It had more to do with the physical appearance of the Fula, who are black and not half Berber. I'm a Hausa and part of the ruling class in Kano and Katsina are composed of Hausa-Fulani. Did you know that Tutsis were said to also speak an Hamitic language? You understand very little. So called "hamties" and hamitic speaking people were suppose to be Caucasoids,ie, white people with black skin. Look at who is considered as Hamites here, it might shick you:

Hamites
Related: People

African people of caucasoid descent who occupy the Horn of Africa (chiefly Somalia and Ethiopia), the western Sahara, and parts of Algeria and Tunisia. They are believed to be the original settlers of N Africa. The Hamitic cradleland is generally agreed to be in Asia—perhaps S Arabia or possibly an area farther east. The Hamites entered Africa in a long succession of migrations, of which the earliest may have been as far back as the end of the pluvial period. They are commonly divided into two great branches, Eastern and Northern. The Eastern Hamites comprise the ancient and modern Egyptians, the Beja, the Berberines, the Oromo , the Somali, the Danakil, and most Ethiopians. The Northern Hamites include the Berbers of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, Tunisia, and Algeria; the Berbers of Morocco; the Tuareg and Tibu of the Sahara; the Fulbe of the Western Sudan; and the extinct Guanche of the Canary Islands.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/H/Hamites.asp

Thats the biggest piece of garbage there, Ethiopians, ancient and modern Egyptians(the same people you#re trying to prove as black using Diop's work), Oromo, Beja, and Fula are caucasoids? Its a shame that you post such nonsense, reghardless whether it was inentional or not. Needless to say, Diop believe none of those people to be caucasoids.

Secondly, Wolof did not descend from Fula(Fulfide); they are both grouped under the West Atlantic Branch under the Niger-Congo language family. Neither is a descendant of Hamitic languages and Diop himself did not believe in some Hamitic theory. Might I mind you that your source was taken from an encyclopedia, a 1911 edition encyclopedia. Even your sorce clearly debunks you. Read this from your "source":

The question of the ethnic affinities of the Fula has given rise to an enormous amount of speculation, but the most reasonable theory is that they are a mixture of Berber and Negro. This is now the most generally accepted theory. [u]Certainly there is no reason to connect them with the ancient Egyptians[/u].

Yes, thats from your 1911 outdated debunked source. You might ask why am I so furious about this, well the reason is simple. I have some Fula ancestry and that same 1911 source of yours calls my people, the Hausa:

They are undoubtedly nigritic, though in places with a strong crossing of Fula and Arab blood. Morally and intellectually they are, however, far superior to the typical Negro.

What kind of rubbish is this, but this is where you got your info from. We have no significant, if any, Arab blood. The same with Fulas.

Now lets look at some up to date sources.

Primarily Muslim people, numbering about 18 million, found in many parts of West Africa, from Lake Chad west to the Atlantic coast.

Their language is Fula, an Atlantic language of the Niger-Congo family. Originally they were herders, but interaction with other groups produced marked cultural changes. In the 1790s the Fulani priest Usman dan Fodio led a holy war (jihad) that created a large empire. Its decay in the 19th century aided the establishment of British rule over northern Nigeria. Many Fulani of northern Nigeria have adopted the Hausa language and culture and established themselves as an urban aristocracy
[URL=http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=390349[/URL]

As to alleged Berber mixture, no genetic study to date has found any "Berber" mixture in the Fulani, so please don't post outdated rubbish mongrelizing my people.

The work of Joseph Greenberg debunked the so-called hamitic classification of the Fula language, did you know that?

You put your foot in your mouth this time.

posted 01 June 2004 05:44 PM            

Fulani belong to Niger-Congo languages and not Afro-Asiatic linguistic branches. Most linguist agree Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo were actually connected at one time but branched off. Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan are so similar to each other which probabaly means modern Western Africans had their origins somewhere within the Southern and Central Sahara. Fulani people definatley desend from the Saharans because a cattle ritual they preform is exactly identical to that of the rock paintings in Tassil Najjer.

The rest is pusedo-racial garbage from the 19th and 20th century to explain diffusion of elements and high culture throughout Africa . Did you know that even Seligman,the originater of the Hamitic myth,believed that bantus were Hamitic people? What foolishness that people want to keep these myths alive in 2004.

posted 01 June 2004 05:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
S.Mohammad, do you know anything of the origin of the Ibo language?. Not sure if that is how it is spelt, but i was talking to a friend that said it was his native language. He was not aware of its origins.

Ozzy

---

The Ibo language is grouped under the Kwa branch of Niger-Congo languages

Kwa Branch
Yoruba : Ibo : Ewe : Twi : Fanti : Ga
Adangme : Fon : Edo : Urhobo : Idoma
Nupe : Agni : Baule : Kru : Grebo : Bassa
http://website.lineone.net/~krysstal/nigercongo.html

posted 01 June 2004 05:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Fulani belong to Niger-Congo languages and not Afro-Asiatic linguistic branches. Most linguist agree Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo were actually connected at one time but branched off. Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan are so similar to each other which probabaly means modern Western Africans had their origins somewhere within the Southern and Central Sahara. Fulani people definatley desend from the Saharans because a cattle ritual they preform is exactly identical to that of the rock paintings in Tassil Najjer.

The rest is pusedo-racial garbage from the 19th and 20th century to explain diffusion of elements and high culture throughout Africa . Did you know that even Seligman,the originater of the Hamitic myth,believed that bantus were Hamitic people? What foolishness that people want to keep these myths alive in 2004.

---

To true, it seems those who wish to squash it are those who give it life. Again much of this would still be mainstreem if it were not questioned, lets keep on questioning!

posted 01 June 2004 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
The Ibo language is grouped under the Kwa branch of Niger-Congo languages

Kwa Branch
Yoruba : Ibo : Ewe : Twi : Fanti : Ga
Adangme : Fon : Edo : Urhobo : Idoma
Nupe : Agni : Baule : Kru : Grebo : Bassa
http://website.lineone.net/~krysstal/nigercongo.html

---

Thanks, that gives me a starting point, I told him I would find him some history. He can not read nor write. He is also the one who found the Wolof speaker.

Thk again

Ozzy

posted 01 June 2004 06:19 PM            

In the 1790s the Fulani priest Usman dan Fodio led a holy war (jihad) that created a large empire And of course, foolish of me to believe the jihad was originally an Arab concept.

Needless to say, Diop believe none of those people to be caucasoids., but he did believe them to be Hamitic, this is written in "African Origins of Civilization" when using Biblical references he showed that the Cushites, Hamites, and Caananites, were all the same race..black...which is why he theorized that the Phoenician/Colchians were black.

So in your blind rage, while attacking me, dont assume that I share the anthropological view of painting this "Hamitic" black race -white- thru superficial concepts like nasal indices. You have seen in other post, and dont pretend to be ignorant of the fact, that I've shown how absurd it is to categorize this "black race" as caucasian.

And whether you would admit it or not, the islamic religion of most West Africans, did have Arab influence. Period.