Relationship between ancient Egyptian and Dagara? Part 1

Revisiting a case put forth by a forum discussant about language relationship between ancient Egyptian [generally placed in the Afrasan language phylum] and Dagara [generally placed in the Niger-Congo language phylum]:

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

In egyptian, some words are formed from this primitive i, all having an affirmative content of "to be". We have:
i: "to be"
i+w: iw: "is", "are"
i+pw, ipw: "it is"
i+nw, inw: "it is"

In dagara there is an identical system, also derived from the primitive i:
i: "to be"
i+na: ina: "to be, to exist"(egyptian: iwn, wn, wnn)
i+nu, inu: "it is"(egyptian: inw, nw, nu)

Mystery Solver replies:

Elsewhere, it is maintained:

‘i‘- suffix ~ I, me, my

And yes, iw ~ is

“pw” (masculine pl.) ~ these, this

“nw” ~ these, this and we also have “nw” ~ time, also “nw” (pl.) ~ belong to

Yes, “wn” and “wnn” ~ to be, to exist.

“sw”, “sy”, and “st” are all alternatives to “it”.

Again, it is a complex matter in Egyptic, and roots of words need to be sought out. Besides, based on this, there is obviously some mismatches between Obenga’s translations and the above.

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

Ancient Egyptians used the suffix -w and -wt for masculine and feminine, respectively:
pr, "house"; prw "houses"
dpt, "ship"; dpwt "ships"

In Dagara, we have:
nir, "man"; nibè, "men"
po, "woman"; pobè, "women"

The element -bè is indeed the element used by Dagari people to express the plural of substantives.

Laymen with no knowledge in linguistics will probably say that although the system is the same, the elements are different as -w,-wt is very different from -bè. That is why one should never draw a conclusion looking at the appearances. Phonetically m/b can evolve into w. Dagara may well have known the forms *niwè and *powè, that would have given the rise to the attested forms nibè and pobè. Actually the pharaonic suffix -w would correspond to the dagara -bè in the same grammatical functions. It is very plausible all the more so since the morphologies are identical.

Mystery Solver replies:

Highly speculative! Just about any language has a means to communicate plurality in one form or another.

Yes, appearances apparently matter, even to Obenga, as he dedicates portions of his lexical comparisons to similarities in lexical appearance, although he tries to argue for genetic basis for such relationship. If Egyptic and these languages come from common branch, one would expect to see not only grammatical cognates shared between the sub-languages of that common branch and Egyptic in attaining plurality, but also lexical appearance of those cognates, which I shall demonstrate in due time, as is exemplified in the case of the functions of “n” and “w” in Egyptic on one hand, and the function of “n” in attaining plurality across the Afrasan super phylum on the other hand. Also, not mentioned here, as it pertains to Dagara, is the grammatic structure of de-neutering terms, so as to attain “masculine” and “feminine” counterparts of a single term. In the Afrasan super family, there is consistency in this structure, along with consistency in lexical appearance in attaining this structure.

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

nfr: "beautiful, good, happy, perfect"
bw+nfr, bwnfr: "beautifulness, goodness, happiness, perfectness"
-bin: "bad"
bw+bin, bwbin: "badness"

Mystery Solver replies:

Yes, “nfr” ~ good, but can also imply “goodness” [Jim Loy, 1998], beautiful or beauty without modification to the term.

“nfrw” ~ goodness [e.g. mnw pw n zj nfrw.f ~ The monument of a man in his goodness - courtesy James P. Allen, 2000] , beauty . This term is apparently the alternative to ‘nfr’ and ‘bw-nfr’, yet doesn’t follow the pattern in question.

Whereas “bw-nfr” ~ good (as noun), as is “bw-bin” ~ bad (noun)

“wr” ~ greatness, yet does not abide by the pattern so-described.

‘bnr’ ~ sweetness, pleasant,
“bw-ikr” ~ excellence, which is not much different from plainly”ikr” ~ excellent, excellence, trustworthy

“bw” also means “place”.

Hence, taking up a few words here and there, without a broader look at the possible alternative uses of single terms, can lead to simplistic conclusions. Obenga himself unintentionally and partly directs us to the complexity of situation in Egyptic, in the following, by acknowledging “nfrw” as an alternative to “bw-nfr” to beautifulness…

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

a) nfr: "beautiful"
bw+nfr bunefer: "beautifulness"

b) nfr: "beautiful"
nfr+w nfrw: "beautifulness"

Mystery Solver replies:

…although, he makes it appear as though it is necessary to have co-occurrence of singular terms to relay the meanings so described; there is no evidence however, that single appearance of the terms in question relay anything different from their supposed co-occurrence. In fact, I’ve just provided an example which suggests otherwise [see above].

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

1)"in,into"
Egyptian: m(m pr: "in the house")
Dagara: mi(zu mi: "in the head")

2)"as"
Egyptian: m(m ssh: "as a scribe")
Dagara: me(me iba: "as a cayman")

3)"and"
Egyptian: n
Dagara: ni (fu ni u: "you and him")

4)"upon, on"
Egyptian: her
Dagara: zu (r/z)(yir zu: "on the house")

The sound correspondances are regular and do match:

m/m
m/m
n/n
h-r/z-(r/z)

Mystery Solver replies:

Yes ‘m’ ~ in; but not quite so simple as that; there is alternative term for it: ‘hr’ ~ in. In fact, Obenga’s repetition of this letter again for a totally different meaning, as the equivalent of “as”, is enough evidence of its use in totally different contexts.

The Egyptic terms for ’and’ from other sources, is “hr” or “hn“ [n with an accent of some sort] ~ and. Haven’t come across any source suggesting “n” ~ and.

Speaking of “hr”, it reappears in Mdu Ntr as the equivalent of “on”, “upon“, “at“, “through“, (conj.) “because“, “and” (with suffix pron.) or “face", which again attests to the problems with cherry picking one context of a single term that could possibly turn out to have one, two or three more other meanings. Again, the root of these terms may well shed light on their origins, and hence, account for parallel designations for the various contexts. Why? Because it is necessary to understand the context of the original term that begat other contexts, and to examine if a well defined figurative undertone accounts for this. With multiple contexts of a single term, one can't simply use it in one convenient context as though it were the root term, without first examining what was just said.

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

In egyptian, n is the first plural personal suffix pronoun (feminine and masculine). Let's suppose a reversed alternation happened between the two situations.

Mystery Solver replies:

Consistency across Afrasan languages is observed, no “reversed alternation“ to speak of.

Suffixes:

--------------Beja-----Arabic----Dahalo-general non-past

I------------->-i<------>-tu<------>-o
you (m.)------>-tia<---->-ta<------>-to
you (f.)------>-tii<---->-ti<------>-to
he------------>-i<------>-a<------->-:i
she----------->-ti<----->-at<------>-to
we------------>-ni<----->-na:<----->-no
you (pl.)----->-tina<--->-tum<----->-ten
they---------->-ina<---->-u:<------>-en, -ammi

Observe the plural suffix pronouns above, where ‘n’ consistently appears in the languages in question.

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

Precisely, in dagara, the second singular personal pronoun is fu, "you". In egyptian, f is the third singular personal suffix pronoun (masculine),"he". It would have been another inversion between dagara and egyptian.

Mystery Solver replies

Whereas in Afrasan we see clear consistency:

Word that ends in:

i = "I, me, my" - per.i = "my house"
k = "you, your" - per.k = "your house"
t = "you, your" - per.t = "your house"
f = "he, him, his" - per.f = "his house"
s = "she, her - per.s = "her house"
n = "we, us, our" - per.n = "our"
tn = "you, your" - per.tn = "y'alls house" best way to show its usage.
sn = "they, them" - per.sn = "their house"
ny(ni) = "our, we two" - per.ny = "We two's house"
tny = "you two" - per.tny = "You two's house"
sny = "those two" - per.sny = "Those two's house" - posted by Wally

Taking that [Kemetic suffixes] and then comparing it with the above suffixes [from Beja, Arabic, Kabyle and Dahalo], we have:

And the pronominal object suffixes add credence:

-------------Beja---Arabic-----Kabyle
me----------->-i,<--->-o -ni:<-->-iyi
you---------->-ok<--->-ka<------>-ik
us----------->-on<--->-na:<----->-aγ
you (pl.)---->-okn<-->-kum <---->-kən

^Compare with Kemetic examples:

'me' or 'I' ------> -i
'you' -------> -k
Plural suffix pronouns -------> -n

Independent pronouns in Egyptic, do no different:

“ink” ~ I

‘ntk’ ~ you (m.)
‘ntt’ ~ you (f.)

“ntf” ~ he, it
“nts” ~ she, it

“inn” ~ we
“nttn” ~ you (pl.)
“ntsn” ~ they

Suffixes:

--------------Beja-----Arabic----Dahalo-general non-past

I------------->-i<------>-tu<------>-o
you (m.)------>-tia<---->-ta<------>-to
you (f.)------>-tii<---->-ti<------>-to
he------------>-i<------>-a<------->-:i
she----------->-ti<----->-at<------>-to
we------------>-ni<----->-na:<----->-no
you (pl.)----->-tina<--->-tum<----->-ten
they---------->-ina<---->-u:<------>-en, -ammi

The main observation above, is the usual pattern for “t”, in the feminine terms, and reappearances of “n” in the plural terms.

According to Ali Alalou of Columbia University, we have the following "direct object pronoun" examples in "Berber language system" [using Tamazight dialect of the Central Atlas region, namely Imdghas and Dades Valley]:

'him' = 't'

'her' = 'ts'

'them' = 'tn'[Musculine plural]

'them' = 'ttn.t [Feminine plural]

'you' = 'tkwn' [Musculine plural]

Feminine pronoun - appearance of ‘s’

Plural pronouns - addition of ‘n’

Feminine pronouns - characterization by addition of ‘t’.

More object pronoun suffixes in Egypt, alternative to the previous citations:

‘sw’ ~ he, him, it

‘sy’ ~ she, her, it

‘st’ ~ she, her, it

‘n’ ~ we, us
‘tn’ ~ you (pl.)
‘sn’ ~ they, them

Feminine pronoun suffix - again addition of ‘t’

Plural pronoun suffix [both masculine and feminine] - addition of ‘n’

Miscellaneous:

Beja definite article--Arabic noun endings--Kabyle obligatory prefix

------Masculine nominative singular------
[Beja df*] u:- ;[Arabic ne*] -u ;[Kabyle op*] w-


------Masculine accusative singular-------

[Beja df*] o- ;[Arabic ne*] -a ; [Kabyle op*] a-

-------Feminine nominative singular-------

[Beja df*] tu:- ;[Arabic ne*] -atu ;[Kabyle op*]t-

-------Feminine accusative singular

[Beja df*] to- ;[Arabic ne*] -ata;[Kabyle op*] ta-

[Notes on abreviations >

Beja df* =Beja definite article

Arabic ne* =Arabic noun endings

Kabyle op* =Kabyle obligatory prefix]

------>

And now Kemetic terms, starting with the most popular term:

Km [Kem, Kam] ---- Musculine singular

Km.t [Kemet] ---- Feminine singular

Kmu [Kemu] ---- Musculine, assuming the role of an accusative adjective.

Kmu.t [Kemu.t] ---- Feminine, assuming the role of an accusative adjective.

Sa Kemet - male citizen of Kemet ---- Musculine noun

Sa.t Kemet - female citizen of Kemet ---- Feminine noun

Rome n Keme - people of Kemet ---- Muscline noun plural

Rome.t Kemet - people of Kemet ---- Feminine noun plural

Nehesi - [southerner] male ---- Muscline noun singular

Nehesi.t - [southerner] female ---- Feminine singular

Shepsu - the noble ---- Musculine plural

Shepsi[.t] - the noble ---- Feminine plural

What pattern is observed herein? Yes, the re-appearance of "t" in conversion of a term into its feminine form.

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

2) Pharaonic egyptian: Dagara:
ir.t: "eye" djir: "to see"

Yoruba:
iri: "to see

Mystery Solver replies:

Egyptic term to see:

‘maa’ - ‘see’ [Jim Loy, 1998]

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

3) Pharaonic egyptian: Dagara:
nw: "to see, to watch" nyè:"to see"
nwa: "id." wolof: "nau"

Mystery Solver replies:

“nw” in Etyptic ~ of, belonging to [plural]; time; this, these

I can also understand how the glyphs for water can be read as “nw”, designating the plurality of the undulating symbols, nonetheless several sources read this as:

“mw” ~ water

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

4)Pharaonic egyptian: Dagara:
nwy: "water" nyu: "to drink"
niw, "primordial water" Kikongo:
-nwa: "id."
Mbochi:
-nyua: "id."

Mystery Solver replies:

As noted above, alternative term for Egyptic ‘water’ is read as ‘mw’, while ‘nwy’ also has an alternative meaning of ‘return’ [e.g. Russell G. Schuh The Use And Misuse Of Language In The Study Of African History (an interesting read btw for students of African Studies); Jim Loy 1998]

Asar Imhotep puts forth:

6) Pharaonic egyptian: Dagara:
iw: "to come" wa: "to come"
yi: "to come"
Mbochi:
wa.t: "road, way" yaa: "to come"

Mystery Solver replies:

“iw” ~ come; alternatives > “ii” and “nwy”

Enough demonstrations of the multiplicity of contexts that single Egyptic terms can have.

----

Leo Depuydt (Brown University):

1997

The Origin and Development of the Ancient Egyptian Suffix Conjugation

Having been written as well as spoken for more than 4000 years, from about 3000-2500 B.C.E. to about 1000-1500 C.E., Egyptian is the world's longest attested language. A topic that deserves treatment in a comprehensive history of the language is the origin and the development of the suffix conjugation. When it first emerged in writing in the early third millennium B.C.E., Egyptian had two distinct ways of conjugating a verb according to person, gender, and number, or just person and number. The first is the suffix conjugation, in which suffix pronouns effect conjugation.

Suffix pronouns are attached to prepositions and nouns in both Egyptian and Semitic; to verbs only in Egyptian. In the suffix conjugation, suffix pronouns originally mostly follow the verbal stem, like .f "he" in Middle Egyptian stp.f "may he choose." But increasingly, they join a "conjugation base" preceding the stem, like .f in Late Egyptian bwpw.f stp "he has not chosen."

The only other conjugation in earliest written Egyptian was the stative conjugation, generally thought to be related to the West-Semitic Perfect and the Akkadian permansive. The stative conjugation is in a sense also a suffix conjugation. Its conjugation endings are attached to the verbal stem. In the second millennium B.C.E., the stative conjugation gradually lost its conjugation and became a stative form. Conjugation of the stative was henceforth effected either by the suffix conjugation attached to a preceding conjugation base, like .f in jw.f stp "he being chosen," or by a newly evolved proclitic conjugation, the third of a total of three conjugations found throughout Egyptian history, as in twj stp "I am chosen." The stative conjugation is known to Egyptologists also as the Old Perfective or Pseudo-participle; the stative form to Copticists also as the Qualitative.

In Afroasiatic terms, the Egyptian suffix conjugation appears to be an innovation. It is widely thought to have evolved from passive participles. But other theories have been proposed. Since the suffix conjugation appears fully developed in earliest written Egyptian, its origin and evolution belong to prehistory. Postulating patterns of evolution in languages is hazardous enough for the historical period. The present investigation makes statements about the suffix conjugation only in as far as they can be derived from facts from the historical period pertaining to this conjugation. I believe that the available facts have not yet been fully exploited to obtain a satisfactory theory of how the suffix conjugation came into being and evolved.

The passive participle theory remains the most plausible, especially if one considers that analogy must have played a crucial role, as it does in every linguistic evolution. Analogical formations are in a sense mistakes. Languages evolves in large part by error, as it were. But what is owed to analogy has been in danger of discrediting the passive participle theory because it is not logical in a certain sense. It will be crucial to identify that part of the suffix conjugation that derives directly from passive participles and that part that came about subsequently by analogy.

-----

Any family resemblance with Egyptic?…

In his effort to demonstrate the "pragmatics of two Berber morphemes n (the space containing the addressee) and d (the space containing the speaker) and their grammaticalization", Ali Alalou says:

"[wt is a verb which means either 'to hit' or 'to throw something at someone'.]

(1)
Y -wt n wrba aryaz Y -ssigh *i
[threw something at -3p.Ms.Sg][towards the addressee][boy-Sub-Cons.][Man-DO-NotCons.][Hit -3p.Ms.Sg][me]

"The boy threw something at (towards the addressee) the man and hit me"

(2)
Y -wt n wrba aryaz Y -ssigh *agh
[threw something at -3p.Ms.Sg][towards the addressee][boy-Sub-Cons.][Man-DO-NotCons.][Hit -3p.Ms.Sg][us]

"The boy threw something at (towards the addressee) the man and hit us"

(3)
Y -wt d wrba aryaz Y -ssigh i
[threw something at -3p.Ms.Sg][towards the speaker][boy-Sub-Cons.][Man-DO-NotCons.][Hit -3p.Ms.Sg][me]

"The boy threw something at (towards the speaker) the man and hit me"

References:

Ali Alalou (Columbia University) - Two Berber Deictics n & d: From Pragmatics to Syntax

http://lughat.blogspot.com/2005/06/beja-and-beyond.html

Mystery Solver replies and cites:

Consonant Compatibility Restrictions in Egyptic and the Afrasan super phylum - another Pan-Afrasan grammatical trait, and other grammatical affinities:

From Kirsty Rowan, we have:

The first seminal study into consonant compatibility restrictions (or dissimilation) is Greenberg’s 1950b paper. 17 In this study, Greenberg analysed and discussed the evident restrictions between certain consonantal segments in the verbal roots, but not on derived forms, of Semitic languages. His investigation, which included the Semitic languages Syriac, Hebrew, Ugaritic, South Arabian, Ethiopic and Assyrian, was also extended to Egyptian, an autonomous branch of Afroasiatic. This led him to make the important assertion that ‘The general subject of the patterning of consonantal phonemes within the morphemes of Hamito-Semitic [Afroasiatic] languages would seem to be a promising subject of investigation and one whose results must be kept in mind for their bearing on the historical analysis of this family of languages’ (1950b:181). Bender (1978) extended Greenberg’s study to other branches of the Afroasiatic phylum and from the positive results obtained led him to conclusively state that ‘…the co-occurrence restrictions are a good Afroasiatic isomorph…’ (1978: 9

The following sections overview the restrictions that take place in a selection of languages from the Afroasiatic phylum.

3.1 Semitic Languages
18
3.1.1 Arabic
Of all the Afroasiatic languages, Arabic has one of the most well documented phonological dissimilatory processes in terms of its root consonantal system and this has led to many phonological discussions and analyses into these consonantal compatibility restrictions. The fundamental characteristic of Semitic morphology is the consonantal root template, where vowels are inserted between the consonants to make forms according to a CV template (McCarthy 1979). Subsequently, Semitic languages are classed as having a non-concatenative morphological system. The most common root type throughout the Semitic languages is the triliteral root form whereby a root is made up of three consonants, although, Semitic roots can also be biliteral and quadriliteral. Greenberg’s (1950) study specifically dealt with the combinations of consonants that could occur in the triliteral root forms.

A Semitic triliteral root can take the form such as /drs/ made up of three consonants or ‘radicals’. These fixed ordered consonants have a range of templates where vowels are interspersed, depending on the grammatical form, which can also take inflectional affixes, shown in the following example:

(1) a. daras-a ~ ‘he studied’
b. dars-un ~ ‘a lesson’
c. diraas-ah ~ ‘studies’
d. daaris ~‘studying’

Greenberg’s (1950) study showed was that the combination of consonants that can make up a root in Arabic is restricted. There is not a free co-occurrence of consonants. These restrictions depend upon the placement of consonants within a root. Therefore, a triliteral root has consonants in the placement of C 1 C 2 or C 3 positions:

(2)

---

C1 C2 C3
|  |  |
d  r  s

---

The adjacency of the positions C1 C2 , and C2 C3 was found to have the strongest restrictions in which consonants could occur, with the non-adjacent C1 and C3 positions still having an avoidance constraint, although a weaker one. Greenberg (1950:162) concluded that not only are identical adjacent consonants prohibited in a root but also that consonantal homorganicity (non-identical consonants sharing the same place of articulation) were strongly disprefered. McCarthy (1979; 1988; 1994) developed Greenberg’s observation, specifically with regards to Arabic, and demonstrated further that the consonant compatibility restrictions were fundamentally determined by the place of articulation and furthermore by the major manner feature of [sonorant] for the coronal place articulator.

(3) a. labials [f, b, m]
b. coronal sonorants [l, r, n]
c. coronal stops [t, d, −t , −d]
d. coronal fricatives [ð, θ, s, z, −s, −z, ]
e. dorsals [g, k, q]
f. gutturals [ , h, , ħ, , χ ]

Fig. 4 shows Kenstowicz’s (1994:163) results table of the distribution of a sample of triliteral roots with adjacent consonants; C1 C2, and C2 C3: 20

(4)

---

labial   cor.son  cor.stop  cor. fric  dorsal  gutteral
.

labial   0        210       125      138       82      151

cor.son  196      15        122      161      165      208

cor.stop 118      153       7        26       29       105
cor.fric 196      211       58       5        89       168
dorsal   118      167       66       105      1        79
gutteral 211      252       148      182      81       11

---

The table shows the vertical column represents the first adjacent consonant with the horizontal column representing the second adjacent consonant. The series’ are given of the consonants depending upon their place of articulation. What can be seen from the table is that there is an overwhelming dispreference for two adjacent consonants of a triliteral root sharing the same place specification (diagonal axis highlighted in bold). 21

Furthermore, analyses of the first and third consonants in a triliteral root also show a dispreference for the consonants sharing the same articulator, as shown in the following table, again taken from Kenstowicz (1994:164):

---

labial   cor.son  cor.stop  cor. fric  dorsal  gutteral
.

labial   20       88        53       37       41       79
cor.son  97       76        52       83       47       85
cor.stop 36       53        9        29       28       45
cor.fric 93       127       61       14       46       88
dorsal   74       72        44       53       3        54
gutteral 126      162       66       85       64       37

---

It is evident that there are a high proportion of occurrences of the coronal sonorant consonants [n, l, r] that can occur in the nonadjacent first and third positions of a triliteral root, subsequently the coronal sonorant set is separated to distinguish between [+nasal].

Conclusively, this data shows that there are consonantal compatibility restrictions in Arabic verbal roots, whereby the occurrence or non-occurrence of consonants is determined by their articulatory place specification.

3.1.2 Tigrinya
Tigrinya is an Ethio-Semitic (South Semitic) language that also shows the same restrictions as Arabic on the occurrences of consonants within a root (Buckley 1997). Even though Tigrinya does not share the exact phonemic inventory as Arabic, it is still seen that the co-occurrence of these consonants rests upon which articulatory sets they are divided into, and again the class of coronals is further subdivided. The Tigrinya inventory has the following classification: (6) 23

a. labials [f, p, b, −−p, m]

b. coronal sonorants [r, n, l]

c. coronal stops [t, d, −t]

d. coronal fricatives [s, z, −s, ]

e. velars [k, g, −k, k , g , −k ]

f. post-velars [h, , , ħ]

Buckley (1997) draws upon a corpus of Tigrinya verb roots and finds that there are no roots containing adjacent identical consonants. However, there are some roots found with nonadjacent identical consonants (1997:12):

(7) sls ‘plow a field for a third time’
l l ‘raise, lift off the ground’
trt ‘tell stories, old traditions’

Although, Buckley points out that some of these roots have known historical origins in roots without identical consonants, such as / sls / is the root for ‘three’ where in Ge’ez it is / ls /. Further, Buckley states that only 12 such roots exist in his corpus of 2744 roots. But what is salient about this data is that the roots with nonadjacent identical consonants nearly always involve the coronal articulator class. Within the coronal sonorant class, Tigrinya makes a further distinction between the feature [+nasal]. As Greenberg (1950:172) noted, the coronal sonorant /n/ can occur freely (whether adjacent or nonadjacent) with /l/ and /r/, but there is a strong prohibition on the liquids /l/ and /r/ occurring together. As Buckley (1997:14) states ‘…the most salient feature among the sonorants is [+nasal], splitting the members into two classes /n/ and /l, r/. Within either class the co-occurrence restriction is absolute in effect, but across the classes the effect is weaker.’ As with the Arabic co- occurrence restrictions, the feature [+continuant] is needed to define two further subsets of the coronal class in that the coronal fricatives ([+continuant] /s, z, −s/) can occur with the coronal stops ([-continuant] /t, d, −t/) but the co-occurrence of these consonants from the same subset is disprefered. 24

In light of the occurrences of adjacent and nonadjacent coronal consonants, this major articulatory class has to have further subdivisions.

Moving on to the velar class of consonants, Tigrinya exhibits an interesting contrast between plain velars and labialised velars. Whereby the co-occurrence of plain velars is strongly prohibited, whether adjacent or nonadjacent, the co-occurrence of labialised velars is more particular. Although in adjacent position labialised velars are prohibited, they can co-occur in non-adjacent position. Buckley’s (1997:15) study does not take into account six suspicious cases of co-occurring labialised velars in quadriliteral roots. He omits these from his analysis because he believes these are cases of historical reduplication of biliteral roots or from a triliteral with infixation (where the same process is attested in Arabic). Furthermore, he proposes that these suspicious cases, and the asymmetry between the plain velars and labialised velars is due to the labialised velars not being inherited from Proto-Semitic, but attributable from borrowed forms from the Cushitic substrate in Ethiopia.

3.1.3 Akkadian
Akkadian is classified as being an East Semitic language of the Afroasiatic phylum. The language, although now deceased, was spoken in ancient Mesopotamia and is known through written records – 2400BC to 100AD. The following classification gives the inventory of the literary dialect of Akkadian (Reiner 1966):

(8) 25
a. labials [p, m, b]

b. coronal sonorants [n, r, l]

c. coronal stops [t, d, −t]

d. coronal fricatives [s, , z, −s]

e. dorsals [k, g, x, q]

Identical adjacent consonants are prohibited in Akkadian verb roots. Again, the root is almost canonically made up of three consonants, although some quadriliteral roots are attested. Reiner (1966:51) states that two adjacent homorganic consonants are also prohibited and puts this non-co-occurrence down to phonotactics as ‘both the first and second, and the second and third consonants of a root come into contact position in some inflectional forms.’ The co-occurrence of consonants that are drawn from the same articulatory set is prohibited in Akkadian. However, the set of coronal sonorants needs further explanation.

Akkadian makes the same distinction within the coronal sonorants of the feature [+nasal] as does Tigrinya. Therefore, the coronal sonorants /r/ and /l/ are prohibited to co-occur in the same root, although the coronal sonorant [+nasal] /n/ is allowed to co-occur with the [-nasal] coronal sonorants /r/ and /l/ but only when it is following - / ln/ or / rn / but never */ nl / or */ nr /. 26

Reiner (1966:50) labels these restrictions as ‘non-reversible’ and gives further instances of non-reversible clusters where these are all instances of consonants from the coronal articulatory set. 27

Further, she states that ‘…this list goes beyond occurrences limited to “root-incompatibility”.’ It is seen in (9) that when there are co-occurrences of coronals consonants, the primary coronal is drawn from the coronal fricative set and the secondary coronal from the coronal stop set and importantly these sequences are prohibited from co-occurring in reverse order (Reiner 1966:41):

(9) /st/, /sd/, /s−t/, /zt/, /zd/, /z−t/, /−st/, /−sd/, / t/, / d/, / −t/,

A further restriction is that two emphatic coronals cannot co-occur:

(10) */−s−t/

Moreover, this restriction on emphatic consonants co-occurring is evidenced when the consonants are drawn from across the articulatory sets. This is known as an instantiation of Geers Law (1945):

(11) */−tq/, */q−t/, */q−s/, */qq/

Reiner (1966:50) points out that it is difficult to discern in instances when these consonantal compatibility restrictions are not respected whether these violations are due to the ‘approximation of foreign words in the vocabulary’ or to ‘actual phonetic realisations.’ Furthermore, she addresses the issue that certain combinations such as /mb/ occur morpho-phonologically as a dissimilation of /b:/ in that /m/ and /b/ are not successive consonants in a root. However, as with other analyses of restrictions in Semitic languages of consonantal compatibility (Greenberg 1950), there are instances of geminated consonants in only second and third positions of triliteral roots but never in first and second position. Generally, this has been attributed to a diachronic process of alteration to the template pattern of biliteral roots transformed into triliteral ones.28

The instances of consonant compatibility restrictions in Akkadian are not restricted to root forms but can also straddle a morpheme boundary when the affix is Derivational. Reiner (1966:51) shows this with the example of the derivational morpheme prefix /ma/ /me/ which is dissimilated to /na/ /ne/ when the root contains a labial consonant. This same process is also evidenced in the Afroasiatic language Tashlhiyt Berber where there is a co-occurrence restriction on derived stems which can only contain one labial consonant, i.e. /b, f, m/. A derivational prefix containing /m/, such as the reflexive or agentive morpheme, will dissimilate from /m/ to /n/ when prefixed to a root that contains a labial consonant in any position (Boukous 1987; El Medlaoui 1995): 29

---

(12a) Reflexive prefix: m n   (12b)  Agentive prefix: am an

     m-xazar  ‘scowl’               am-las   ‘shear’
     m-saggal ‘look for’            am-zug   ‘abscond’
     n-fara   ‘disentangle’         an-bur   ‘stay celibate’
     n-kaddab ‘consider a liar’     an-azum  ‘fast’

---

The dissimilative process that can apply across morphemes, however, is not seen in other Afroasiatic languages such as Arabic as Greenberg (1950:179) noted. A root such as ftH ‘to open’ can have the nominal instrument prefix m- attached with no change on the labial quality of the consonants, therefore resulting in the form mifta:H ‘key’. Subsequently, two labial consonants can be adjacent when they belong to separate morphemes.

Akkadian and Berber are languages that apply the consonantal incompatibility rule to a higher order constituent, namely the word, rather than languages such as Arabic where it is restricted to the root.30

And now, examining this pattern in ancient Egyptian:

Compatability restrictions in Egyptic, courtesy Kirsty Rowan...

3.2 Ancient Egyptian
Ancient Egyptian is classified as being an autonomous member of the Afroasiatic Phylum and a such is positioned on its own sub-branch of Northern Afroasiatic. It is the longest continually attested language in the world and is fundamentally known through its writing system which appeared shortly before 3000 BCE and survived, in various stages, until the fifth century CE, although the spoken language was actively used for a further six centuries before being superseded by the Arabic language (Allen 2000).

Ancient Egyptian is a dead language, however, Coptic which is its last spoken phase is still used as the liturgical language of the Christian Coptic church in Egypt. Greenberg(1950b:179) addressed the issue of whether the incompatibility of consonants could be attributed to the Proto-Semitic period through a preliminary examination of Egyptian verbal roots (as Egyptian has such a long documented history), which are also formed by two or three consonants. Greenberg rested his investigation into this on certain series’ of consonants as the patterning of others was too obscure in Egyptian ‘because of the coalescence within Egyptian of consonants originally belonging to different and compatible series and sections’ (1950b:179).

Overall, Greenberg was able to specifically outline the most fundamental restrictions. Further studies on consonantal compatibility restrictions in Egyptian (Peust 1999b; Takács 1996; Watson 1979; Roquet 1973; Rössler 1971; Petráček 1969) have contributed to Greenberg’s (1950b) Egyptian consonantal incompatibility claims. 31

The main findings from these researchers are presented here, with an incompatibility chart taken from Peust (1999b:196). Although, Peust does not discuss the general principles that are behind these restrictions i.e. the restriction into root occurrence whereby there is a fundamental dispreference for identical first and second positional consonants etc. However, Peust’s (1999b) examination does detail how the data is counted.32

He goes on to state that ‘It is therefore to be assumed that the chart actually represents the consonantal incompatibilities as they were valid around the time of the late Old Kingdom. In the early Old Kingdom, not all of these incompatibility rules were already valid. From the Middle Kingdom on, Egyptian integrated a considerable number of loan words which did not conform with these rules, and consequently the system of compatibility restrictions was obscured.’ (1999:195). 33

Furthermore, the restrictions that Peust posits surely include the incompatibility of nominal forms as well as verbal (this is not explicitly stated but can be seen through his small use of data), whereas Greenberg and Watson kept to the analysis of only verbal forms. Consequently, I believe this can, at times, contradict the claims of incompatibility made by these scholars, as Greenberg outlined when looking at the incompatibility of Semitic roots ‘It is therefore striking that so many Semitic substantival roots have identical first and third consonants.’(1950b:168).

To be continued in Part 2.

Anti-Semitism: The logic behind the Word — Is it sound?

"Anti-Semitism" as a term, seems to have become a word too loosely used in the mass media and possibly everyday language, especially in the so-called "West", wherein not much thought is given to the literal lingual basis of the word.

A little bit of historical perspective on this term:

Wilhelm Marr coined the term “anti-Semitism” in 1879 in his The Victory of the Jews over the Germans, which appeared in 12 editions in one year. His publication blamed the Jews for threatening to dominate the German economy and destroy the greatness of Germany

Source: 19th Century Antisemitism

This fellow, Wilhelm Marr, at least seems to be contextualizing the term—that is, "anti-Semitism"—in a relatively less questionable linguistic framework, whereby he takes what he basically treats as a social identifier (namely Jews) for just a section of the overall German society, and places it into the context of Jews vs. Germans, with the latter apparently being non-Semitic speakers. Thus here, on the basis of relativity, the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent amongst sections of Germans, can to some extent be safely branded as "anti-Semitism". But today, it has become something of a tradition in "western" media to casually accuse anyone who so much as levies any criticism—rightfully or otherwise against even just a section of "Jews"—of being "anti-Semitic", while some of those very same media accusers are the most vociferous purveyors of anti-"Middle Easterner" and/or anti-"Arab" [many of whom by virtue of language are Semitic-speakers] sentiments in the "West"; yet, none of these personalities will ever charge themselves with "anti-Semitism".

Not too long ago, Hollywood personality Mel Gibson was blasted in the mass media for babbling on about Jews being "responsible for all the wars in the world" while ostensibly under the influence of alcohol. He was widely accused of “anti-Semitism” in major U.S. "news" networks!

Don't know, but the last time yours truly checked, Arabic language speakers and various ethnic groups in the African Horn were also considered "Semitic" language speakers.

Obviously not all Jews are Hebrew speakers, at least as far as their primary tongue is concerned, nor are all Muslims “Arabic” speakers. With that said, especially in "Western" mass media, right-wing extremist elements (often referred to as "Islamic terrorists") which profess allegiance to the Muslim faith and ordinary Muslims alike—two separate matters which "western" media often make little-to-no distinction between—have become the focus of rabid sensationalism, saturated with negative coverage, with both media pundits and public figures going so far as to outright call for the systematic racial profiling of "Middle Eastern"-looking and/or "Arabic" speaking individuals, supposedly on the grounds of "national security". Given that these so-targeted persons are for the most part ‘Semitic’ speakers, should such hostility towards them too not be deemed "anti-Semitism"?—Is doing otherwise, not a blatant hypocrisy?

On this last note, the present author recently came across an article where someone accused Rev. Wright—the subject of much U.S. media attention throughout the progress of the Democratic party nomination process, particularly so at the beginning of May—of "anti-Semitism", and this is how it went:

“Reverend Wright’s views are an eclectic mixture of black nationalism, radical criticism of US foreign policy and conspiracy theories, with a dollop of anti-Semitism—or at least tolerance for the anti-Semitism of figures like Farrakhan—thrown in.”

Whatever the political leaning of Rev. Wright, good or bad, the little that the present author has come to learn about the man warrants that this charge of "antisemitism" be given a second look, so as to examine the premise of such a charge—at the very least, raise questions about the basis for it. So, in pursuit of an answer, the present author decided to correspond with the author of the citation above as follows:

I would like to first point out that I don't know a whole lot about Rev. Wright as a person, never met him, nor listened to much of his sermons—save for the few from which the now familiar controversial “sound bytes” were extracted and replayed ad nauseam in various news outlets, not to leave out that I'm neither his defender nor his opponent.

That said, much of what I just cited you on [above] doesn't appear to be an unreasonable observation of Rev. Wright, at least based on the little that I know of him. However, I do have a question about “...the dollop of anti-Semitism—or at least tolerance for the anti-Semitism of figures like Farrakhan—thrown in.” part of your assessment; what is this charge of “anti-Semitism” based on?

Rev. Wright for his part, as he appeared “live” on the various News network channels, clarified that he doesn't necessarily agree with Farrakhan on everything, notwithstanding his friendship with the latter—relating that to the audience by noting that no two people in a single room will share the same view on everything, and said this:

“Louis said 20 years ago that **Zionism, not Judaism**, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. **And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.**

He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him.... Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color.” — by Rev. Wright, Courtesy CNN

Note: ** is for emphasis.

Rev. Wright goes onto to say something to the effect of the need for people to work together, despite religious [and presumably ethnic] differences. “Zionism” is certainly not “Semitism", nor “Judaism” is “Semitism” the last time I checked...or am I wrong about that?

“Semitic” in modern terms, is generally a reference to a language phylum that is said to be an offshoot of language super-phylum which has its origins in eastern Africa. Hebrew is generally considered to be a “Semitic” language, which would make its speakers—“Semitic speakers”, but so does the same apply to other languages that belong to this phylum; namely, Arabic, and various Ethio-Semitic languages like Amharic, Tigrinya, and so forth; therefore, speakers of any of these languages are by language definition, “Semitic-speakers”. Should it then follow, that criticism of any member of these people amounts to “anti-Semitism”? If not, why not? Also, while Zionists tend to be Jewish [whether as a socio-ethnic construct and/or religious construct], does that mean that all Jews are Zionists? Likewise, are all Jews necessarily “Semitic speakers”?

Perhaps I have gotten a little carried away with the line of questioning, but I hope the point is obvious. Therefore, please clarify the “anti-Semitic” aspect(s) of Rev. Wrights views.

 

To piggyback on the citation above, Zionism is obviously not Judaism, nor are all Jews "Zionists".

Now, unless yours truly is missing something here, the subsequent failure of the above-mentioned author to fulfill that request raises some serious questions about the validity of this charge of "anti-Semitism" and the level of care with which it was levied!

Examining cases for or against homoplasy at designated DNA loci

Part of this topic is a carry over from the earlier topic of 12-repeat allele at DYS392 microsatellite of certain PN2 clades, including E-M78 [clickable link]

Argument #1 about the 12-repeat all at DYS392 : Characteristic of homoplasy...

— seems to reappear in different subclades of M78, particularly in regions where M78 appears to be fairly frequent [Cruciani et al.'s emphasis, 2008], but almost always doesn't seem to appear in all the haplotypes of the respective subclades where it makes its appearance.

Argument #2: Characteristic of a relatively stable site and hence, a part of the hereditary package of a monophyletic unit...

— while not necessarily geographically restricted, it appears to be sharply geographically-structured, with preponderance in eastern Africa, particularly sub-Saharan East Africa. [Semino et al. emphasis, 2004]

— occurs in E-P2*, E-M35*, and E-M78 but is almost *absent in all other haplogroups* [Semino et al. 2004]

— an ancient differentiation of the E-P2 haplogroup occurred in loco (East Africa). However, this also implies a low mutability of the associated microsatellite motif (DYS392-12/DYS19-11) [Semino et al. 2004]

— high stability of the DYS392 locus (Brinkmann et al. 1998; Nebel et al. 2001) and of the shorter alleles of DYS19 (Carvalho-Silva et al. 1999) has been reported elsewhere.[Semino et al. 2004]

The first argument seems pretty self-explanatory, but let's take a quick look at the second one:

If we are to assume that this was the product of an ancient differentiation of E-P2* in loco — East Africa, one which is not that of homoplasic events, then one has to account for the 12-repeat allele's absence in subsets of haplotypes of the various E-P2 derived clades. If it were just about the E-P2* clade alone [sans the major downstream mutations], then the geographical structuring of the slightly differentiated E-P2 paragroup via the 12-repeat allele would be sensible, as it would have been after the fact of the P2 mutational event and carried by a single individual common recent ancestor.

However, this scenario would imply that the descendants of the just-mentioned common recent ancestor should have inherited the 12-repeat allele. Now, since downstream mutational events at M35* and M78 are supposed to represent single events, it ought to not make sense that some M35* and M78 lineages have the 12-repeat allele while other chromosomes of those same markers don't—again, that is if the 12-repeat allele is treated as a highly stable locus, which became part of the hereditary package of a Pn2*-bearing common ancestor. But...

...what if, one were to account for the above-mentioned inconsistency, by suggesting homoplasic revertant mutational events in M35* and M78 chromosomes at the DYS392-12 locus; this would tend to weaken that argument about the "low mutability" of the DYS392-12 locus, which seems to be one of the points of the second argument, but an important one. Though the 12-repeat allele does appear in chromosomes ancestral at either sites of M35 and M78, the latter are highly unlikely to be products of reoccurring nucleotide polymorphisms, because they have long been demonstrated to form a monophyletic unit [branch] of the Pn2 clade, with each forming their own sub-branches.

On the other hand, the overwhelming preponderance of the 12-repeat allele in ancestral P2 clades and its derivative clades in East Africa, particularly sub-Saharan East Africa, does seem to favor its origin therein, if the 12-repeat is to be treated as a reasonably stable locus which is a part of the hereditary package of a Pn2*-bearing [lacking the major downstream mutations associated with the M215 and the M35* phylogeny] common ancestor. One thing that the aforementioned "preponderant" distribution of the 12-repeat allele-bearing Pn2 clades in east Africa does less arguably demonstrate, is the commanding frequencies of the aforementioned three main Pn2+ clades in east Africa.

On another case study, Cruciani et al note:

We recently refined the phylogenetic relationship
between markers M215 and M35, which identify the
human Y chromosome haplogroup E3b in Underhill et al.
(2001). In the new topology of the Y chromosome tree, the
E3b haplogroup is defined by M215, E-M35 becoming a
subhaplogroup of E3b (E3b1) (Cruciani et al., 2004). We
also showed that a subhaplogroup of E-M35, E-M78, is
highly valuable for understanding the male-mediated
gene geography of Eurasia and Africa. We described short
tandem repeat (STR) alleles useful to define clusters of
related haplotypes within E-M78 (Cruciani et al., 2004),
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which validate to
a large extent the same clusters (Cruciani et al., 2006),
and the geographic distribution of the E-M78 subclades
defined by the above markers in 517 subjects (Cruciani
et al., 2007). Dating results and population inferences
based on the above data set relied on the assumption of a
monophyletic origin of the C to T mutation at M78.

In an interesting paper recently published in the Journal,
Fernandes et al. (2008) present data on the typing of
130 E-M35 subjects for SNPs and STRs. They suggest
that three cases of equality in state at 11 STR loci between
pairs of chromosomes belonging to different E-M35 subclades,
denote the repeated occurrence of mutations at
M78 and M81, as either forward or reversion events. In
addition, the authors prompt caution in using novel
arrangements of SNPs supported by a reduced number of
subjects as new clades, and thus reject the novel branching
pattern and the ensuing nomenclature proposed by
Cruciani et al. (2004) for the E3b (E-M215) haplogroup.

Here, we introduce a novel polymorphic marker (V68),
potentially useful to investigate the issue of hidden recurrent
mutational events at M78. V68 is an A to C transversion
obtained with the primers V68 FOR (50-CAACTGAAAAT
CAGAACTTTGG) and V68 REV (50-GTGGATCACGAGG
TCAGG). In discussing the position of V68 within the Y
phylogenetic tree, we retain the haplogroup nomenclature
based on the defining mutation (The Y Chromosome Consortium,
2002).

A total of 239 male subjects of African ancestry, previously
analyzed for the allelic state at the E3b (E-M215)
markers (Cruciani et al., 2004, 2007), were assayed for
V68 in order to assess the position of this marker in the Y
chromosome phylogenetic tree. The subjects represented
the four main E-M35 sub-clades (E-M78, E-M81, E-M123,
E-V6), as well as the E-M35*, E-M215*, and Y(xM215)*
paragroups, and were selected to equalize, when possible,
the number of chromosomes within each haplogroup/paragroup.
Thus, they do not faithfully represent each clade’s
frequency in the overall population sample (see Fig. 1).

The results shown in Figure 1 unequivocally assign the
marker V68 to the same branch as M78. For the time
being, the two markers are phylogenetically equivalent.
These results are strong evidence against the presence, in
our sample, of homoplasic M78 derived alleles, as well as
possible M78 revertants. In fact, in the first case any non-
M78 chromosome undergoing a recurrent M78 forward
mutation would result in an apparent E-M78 chromosome
carrying the ancestral allele at V68, a situation not yet
observed. The mirror event, a M78 reversion to the ancestral
state, would produce E-V68 chromosomes ancestral at
M78, again a pattern not yet found. The finding of the yet
unidentified chromosomes described earlier for either scenario
would raise two alternatives, i.e. the presence of a
novel Y tree branch resulting from the phylogenetic resolution
between V68 and M78, versus a recurrence/reversion
event. While the low mutation rate for single nucleotide
substitutions usually favors the first hypothesis (identifying
SNPs as Unique Event Polymorphisms, or UEPs)
(Underhill and Kivisild, 2007), the recurrence/reversion
hypothesis can be nevertheless considered. In this case,
the analysis of the involved SNP loci at the level of nucleotide
identity is mandatory.

Present author's take:
According to the extract, Fernandes et al. 2008 have reservations, but no mention is made of an actual refutation of Cruciani et al.'s argument about a strong link between V68 allele and M78 UEP—representing a monophyletic unit, and about either nucleotide polymorhisms—that is, M78 and V68—having the hallmarks of a UEP as opposed to relics of homoplasic events. To put it in the words of Cruciani et al. themselves, this argument "cannot be questioned until compelling evidence is put forward."

At any rate, this is a study that will likely be revisited here for further examination, as more details of the study come to attention, and as reactions from peer-reviews are publicized.
_________________________________________________________________
*References:

—Semino O. et al., Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y‐Chromosome Haplogroups E and J, 2004.

—Cruciani F. et al. 2007, Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12.

—Cruciani F. et al. 2008, Recurrent mutation in SNPs within Y chromosome E3b (E-M215) haplogroup: A rebuttal

An Analysis of "The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity"

The authors of the recent study titled "The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity" suggest that the divergence of the immediate ancestors of contemporary KhoiSan groups from a common ancestral maternal gene pool—shared with "non-KhoiSan" African groups—couldn't have occurred later than 90,000 years bp, and place the upper bound of this 'split' at a time range of 140,000-210,000 years bp. The goal here, would be to put this observation to test.

First, a few things to straighten out:

D. M. Behar et al. 2008 say...

A more recent geographically restricted enrichment of the African maternal gene pool was shown to have occurred during the early Upper Paleolithic, when populations carrying mtDNA clades M1 and U6 arrived to north and northeast Africa from Eurasia, hardly penetrating the sub-Saharan portion of the continent, except Ethiopia.

This goes back to that very questionable proposition about the African lineages of U6 and M1 being of Eurasian origin, when there is very little evidence to support such—the issue was discussed in detail here:

Mitochondrial DNA M1 haplogroup: A Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al. 2007 [clickable link]

M1 and U6 are far from being Eurasian-derived lineages. Preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise, as briefed in the link above.

The authors are correct in noting that KhoiSan groups are notable for bearing the deepest clades of contemporary human gene pool; they however, make it seem as though—if only subtly—that the KhoiSans hold the distinction of being "unique" in this regard, when in fact, there are several other African groups who share this distinction. To quote them:

Early studies based on mtDNA control region variation have suggested that KhoiSan divergence dates to an early stage in the history of modern human, whereas their anthropological and linguistic features show closer affinities to each other than to those of other populations in Africa. 21,22 Their distinctiveness is also supported by phylogenetic studies of the male-specific Y chromosome that indicate that the most basal branch of the Y phylogeny is now common among the KhoiSan but is rare or absent in other populations.18 — D. M. Behar et al. 2008

It is a matter of fact that the most basal clades of the Y chromosome are variably distributed across the continent, but with the highest frequencies thus far observed in parts of eastern Africa—as the case is in Sudan and Ethiopia for example, central Africa—as noticed in "pygmy" groups, and yes, in Southern Africa—as found in KhoiSans. From the standpoint of Y chromosome markers, the most basal clades constitute haplogroups like A-M91, B-M60, followed by M168 [designated as haplogroup CT elsewhere], which in the main, also hold the distinction of being quite rare or absent outside of continental Africa.

Additionally, from the citation above, the authors make a link between the basal nature of maternal markers in KhoiSan groups and that of Y chromosome markers:

Early studies based on mtDNA control region variation have suggested that KhoiSan divergence dates to an early stage in the history of modern human,...Their distinctiveness is also supported by phylogenetic studies of the male-specific Y chromosome...

...and indeed, many other papers have indicated that male-specific markers that are characterized as being 'aboriginal' to KhoiSan groups, as opposed to reflecting relatively more recent gene flow from non-KhoiSan groups, tend to be of the basal subtypes that feature considerable microsatellite STR cluster diferences from those of other African groups notable for those same 'basal branches' of Y phylogeny—indicating considerable time of separation between Khoisans and non-neighboring extra-KhoiSan groups. For example...

The paragroup E-M35* has been observed at high frequencies in both eastern (10.5%) and southern (15.2%) Africa,...

... extensive interpopulation E-M35* microsatellite diversity (fig. 2A) between Ethiopians and Khoisan indicates that eastern Africans and Khoisan have been separated for a considerable period of time, as has been suggested elsewhere (Scozzari et al. ¹⁹⁹⁹; Cruciani et al. ²⁰⁰²; Semino et al. ²⁰⁰²). — Cruciani et al., 2004 [1]

...and, from Semino et al.:

The present study reveals that (1) only the Ethiopians share with the Khoisan the deepest human Y-chromosome clades (the African-specific Groups I and II) but with a repertoire of very different haplotypes; (2) most of the Ethiopians and virtually all the Senegalese belong to Group III, whose precursor is believed to be involved in the first migration out of Africa; and (3) the Ethiopian Y chromosomes that fall into Groups VI, VIII, and IX may be explained by back migrations from Asia. The first observation confirms the ancestral affinity between the Ethiopians and the Khoisan, which has previously been suggested by both archaeological and genetic findings... — Semino et al. 2002

...and,

The remaining 37 E-M35* Y chromosomes were found mainly in Africa, with a high frequency in the Ethiopians and the Khoisan...The distribution of E-P2* appears limited to eastern African peoples. The E-M35* lineage shows its highest frequency (19.2%) in the Ethiopian Oromo but with a wider distribution range than E-P2*. Indeed, it is also found at high frequency (16.7%) in the Khoisan of South Africa (Underhill et al. ²⁰⁰⁰; Cruciani et al. ²⁰⁰²) (suggesting, once again, their ancient relationship with Ethiopians) and observed in southern Europe (present study). — Semino et al. 2004 [2]

...but Semino et al. 2002 note that:

In a previous study (Passarino et al. ¹⁹⁹⁸), the genetic structure of the Ethiopian population was investigated using mtDNA and some nonrecombinant Y-chromosome (NRY) markers previously studied in the Khoisan (Soodyall and Jenkins ¹⁹⁹²; Spurdle and Jenkins ¹⁹⁹²)... ...Although the mtDNA did not reveal a particular relationship between Ethiopians and the Khoisan, affinities were suggested by Y-chromosome analyses.

This is apparently attributable to 1) considerable time of separation, as noted, and 2) geographical structuring of markers due to localization after divergence. Hence, even though male-specific markers showed affinities between say, KhoiSan and Ethiopian samples, that were not as apparent in the mtDNA analysis mentioned, these markers too showed distribution and frequency patterns of visibly distinct [and hence polarizing] subtypes between the samples in question.

Semino et al. 2002 note:

Groups I and II are essentially restricted to Africans and appear to be the most divergent clades within the tree. They show a patchy distribution, with high frequencies among isolated hunter-gatherer groups and in some peoples of Ethiopia and Sudan...

...In particular, Group I, observed in 43.6% of the Khoisan (usually considered to be descendants of an early African population), is present in all of the Ethiopian samples...However, figure 1 shows that the Ethiopian and Khoisan samples within Group I fall into different haplotypes (haplotypes 1, 2, and 5 in Ethiopians vs. haplotypes 4, 6, and 7 in the Khoisan), in agreement with an ancient divergence from the same ancestral population, as has been suggested by microsatellite data (Scozzari et al. ¹⁹⁹⁹).

Now, bearing in mind, that D. M. Behar et al. suggest that it would not be parsimonious to date the divergence of KhoiSan ancestors from a common ancestral African group later than 90,000 years bp, can a link then be made between mtDNA markers and male-specific markers in KhoiSans, in terms of basal character of phylogeny and temporal character of genealogical divergence?

Behar et al. for the most part paint a picture of a single wave of migration being the source of the 'aboriginal' KhoiSan maternal gene pool—largely of L0d and L0k markers—no later than 90,000 years bp, [and yes, to answer the question above, the authors did make a link between mtDNA markers and male-specific markers—as mentioned several notes ago]. How does one reconcile this with male-specific markers, considered to be 'aboriginal' to KhoiSan groups, assuming that this wasn't a wave of migration exclusively of females?

Well, from the standpoint of basal character of genealogical phylogeny, there seems to be a common theme of basal haplogroups both maternally and paternally, and so, no qualms there; but from a temporal standpoint, questions arise vis-a-vis any correlation between the 'aborignal' maternal gene pool and male-specific gene pool. This is in no small part due to the fact that according to many publications, the "most basal branch of Y phylogeny" thus far identified date later than the 90,000 y bp time frame cap postulated!

National Geographic's site for "The Genegraphic Project", a project which one of the authors of the present Behar et al. study—that is, Spencer Wells—is a part of, for instance dates the MRCA of haplogroup A-M91 to ca. 55,000 years ago, while B-M60 is dated to ca. 50,000-60,000 years ago. From examination of various publications, the 'average' date given to early successful Out of Africa migrations of anatomically modern humans is ca. 60,000 years ago more or less. Naturally, this would imply that the just mentioned basal haplogroups would have to be older than that OOA date, but still, no work to date that comes to mind, has dated them either earlier than or contemporaneous to ca. 90,000 years bp.

Where does this lead us to? Is it possible then, to assume that the "aboriginal" male-specific gene pool—which was supposed to have been a part of the wave of migration that begat mtDNA markers L0d and L0k—was "erased" by a subsequent wave of migration, which would have likely been male-biased [for if it were not, one would expect some noticeable impact of the co-migration maternal gene pool]? If so, the question becomes when and why.

Furthermore, characteristic Khoisan gene pool extends well to the E-M35* Y chromosome marker, as noted before, and to reiterate...

Indeed, it is also found at high frequency (16.7%) in the Khoisan of South Africa (Underhill et al. ²⁰⁰⁰; Cruciani et al. ²⁰⁰²) (suggesting, once again, their ancient relationship with Ethiopians) and observed in southern Europe (present study). — Semino et al. 2004 [2]

In descending order, courtesy Semino et al. 2004…

Ethiopian (Oromo) - E-M35* = 19.2%, KhoiSan (South Africa) - E-M35* = 16.7%, Ethiopian (Amhara) - E-M35* = 10.4%, Berber (North-Central Morocco) - E-M35* = 7.9%, Berber (Southern Morocco) - E-M35* = 7.5%, Senegalese - E-M35* = 5%, Tunisian - E-M35* = 3.4%, Algerian - E-M35* = 3.1%, Arab (Morocco) - E-M35* = 2.3% , Burkina Faso -E-M35* = .9%

...but overall,

Group III is less frequent in the Khoisan (28.2%), who share with Ethiopians only the M35 haplotype 19 (10.3%). Conversely, the M2 component, which occurs at a frequency of 17.9% in the Khoisan, is virtually absent in the Ethiopians. — Semino et al. 2002

Indeed; consider the fact that E3-P2* is notably rare or absent in KhoiSan groups. The significance of this, is obviously the fact that E3* is a precursor to Pn2 derived clades of E3b [including E-M35] and E3a. Additionally, it is an indicator of yet another subsequent wave of migration likely to be dated later than the 90,000 y bp time cap. However, since Bantu-speakers who live near KhoiSan groups have little to rare E-M35 distribution, in contrast to the considerably high KhoiSan frequencies, it is a hard sell to imagine that these were introduced to them by Bantu-speaking groups.

It is of interest, that Semino et al. 2002 note that...

Although intermediary Bantu-speaking populations currently separate these two groups geographically, archaeological findings suggest that the Khoisan territory once extended above the equator, to present-day southern Ethiopia and Sudan (Nurse et al. ¹⁹⁸⁵, p. 105)...

This would make sense, given the distribution of the most basal branches of Y phylogeny in these regions, which is a characteristic feature of KhoiSan gene pool. However, to reiterate; E3* is rare to absent in KhoiSans, and yet, E-M35* is considerably higher amongst them than most other groups outside of sub-Saharan east Africa, including east African Bantu-speaking populations. E3* is notably present, if not in relatively higher frequencies than elsewhere, in those very same regions that carry the most basal branches of Y phylogeny as the KhoiSans do. This is an interesting contrast between east African and south African groups which predominantly carry these basal branches, aside from the fact that the subtypes of the KhoiSan basal branches largely differ from those in east Africa. It would seem to argue against the idea of haplogroups A and B markers arriving in southern Africa in the same wave of migrations as E-M35* markers [such a prospect would also tend to lower the range of the migration time frame], but yet, each wave of migration in question date later than the 90,000 y bp time cap that is supposed to mark the lower bound of the localization process of "aboriginal" KhoiSan mtDNA markers like L0d and L0k. Then again, perhaps a tenuous [and very tenuous at that, since non-E3* (P2) "Group III" markers are rare to absent in KhoiSan groups of southern Africa] assumption can be that small frequencies of E3* may have been available in KhoiSan groups, but have largely since been drifted out by neutral random genetic drift, while the E3*-Pn2 derived clades of E-M35* were subjected to positive random genetic drift, thereby inflating E-M35* frequency. This only goes to show the considerable complexity that underlies demographic events over time across huge chunks of landmass, which cannot be explained away with simple migration theories!

On a side note, can archeology clue us in on the temporal and spatial dispersion of the KhoiSans immediate ancestors?

Whether tenuously or not so tenuously, certain rock art have been attributed to San hunter-gatherer groups of southern African, like the following for instance...

Courtesy www.metmuseum.org: 
Game Pass Shelter
Kwazulu-Natal
South Africa
Courtesy of the Rock Art Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
RSA GAM 95

Courtesy www.metmuseum.org:
A line drawing illustrating figures as they appear on the so-called Rosetta Stone.

Side note: Essentially a simplified repro of the above rock art. Notice the slender body plan animation of the human figures, but more interestingly perhaps—in so far as it relates to KhoiSans—the human figure following the first one on the far left "herding" the cow; the figure appears to be bending, but it seems to have steatopygia—a fairly common feature amongst KhoiSan groups, particularly more pronounced in the females.

Some undated "San" paintings - Eastern Cape

 Storm Shelter
Eastern Cape

South Africa

Image courtesy of Geoffrey Blundell

If art can be accurately tied to contemporary groups like KhoiSan s, especially those which are very conservative in their lifestyles over a great dea l of time, and if ancient artwork can be accurately dated, perhaps it can aid us—amongs t other disciplines—in reconstructing demographic events with a reasonable level of precision!
_______________________________________________________________
*References:

—D.M. Behar et al. 2008, The Dawn of Human Matrilineal Diversity

—[2], Semino et al. 2004, Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area
—[1], Cruciani et al. 2004, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa

—Semino et al. 2002, Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny

Revisiting exchanges with Clyde Winters on the Meroitic script—The Conclusion

In the last posting, the Meroitic Graffito from Musawwarat was briefly looked at, and this is what it looks like:

And this is what it is supposed to read, according to Mr. Rilly:

In Meroitic
Wle qo phn 3 tlt Netror-se-l-o

In English
« this dog was bought (???) three talents, it is Netarura's ».

The above statement was reconstructed according to the familiar Meroitic alphabets, as represented by the inscription—apparently there to talk about the subject of the accompanying images of the 'Graffito'. The meaning of the words were largely identified with the aid of the accompanying cotext, and then re-verified in other Meroitic texts where the said words reappear—this is especially true for the target words in the inscription of the 'Graffito', which in this case, are "this dog". The question marks in brackets obviously indicate that a term in between 'bought' and 'three' were not identified by Mr. Rilly, but in any case, the target words of interest here and which are deemed to be unequivocally identified, are again "this dog"—as highlighted by Mr. Rilly himself in his publication. In other words, "this dog"—supposedly read in Meroitic as "wle qo"—are supposed to be the words whose meanings had been "assured".

Clyde Winters presumes Mr. Rilly's interpretation of the 'Graffito' inscription was wrong—no doubt another willful oversight of what was actually being said—on the account that he wrongly read the signs in question. According to him,...

Firstly, the grafitto has a dog chasing a rabbit. Although the rabbit being chased by the dog is obvious to anyone looking at the grafitto this pictorial fact is not mentioned by Rilly. — Clyde Winters

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to Mr. Winters that Mr. Rilly isn't casually going by the images he sees in the 'Graffito', but rather, is going by what he deems to be the actual content of the accompanying text, via the methodology just described above. Additionally, as the present author had pointed out to him,...

You'll have us believe that the specific piece of text cited, should read "dog chasing rabbit". It only shows me that the man is actually methodologically using the multicontextual method to determine the meanings of new words, and not just blindly making them up, simply because of what is in the picture, which is what you're clearly doing. — Mystery Solver

As proof of the fact that he didn't bother to read and/or is willfully misinterpreting Mr. Rilly's findings, Clyde adds...

In addition after correctly deciphering the Meroitic w and l signs, he failed to record the ‘e’, that follows the wl (please refer to the Meroitic chart above). Thus this should have read w-l-e, not wl. — Clyde Winters

In fact, Mr. Rilly mentions "wle" in his reconstruction of the "Graffito" inscription, not "wl" [missing the terminating 'e'], as Mr. Winters wildly imagines it to be.

Mr. Winters proceeds, with a visual aid of course...

Now let's look at his alleged decipherment and reading of the Meroitic signs.

For example, he interprets the three lines : ||| as the numeral three, this was wrong in Meroitic ||| is the ‘y’(check out the Meroitic writing chart above). — Clyde Winters

...and thus lays out his own interpretation, presumably with the aid of the linguistically and alphabetically distinct Kharosthi script, by reiterating that...

Now when we use my decipherment to read the text and the accompanying drawing

we have the following : [Dog] exist indeed to grant a noble boon [of rabbits with] the intention to bring elevation to you, meritorious Netror”. The vocabulary items are as follows:

W, to be, exist, to drive, to conduct

L, indeed, or termination element

E, grant a boon, vouchsafe, favor

Qo, to live, to renew, to restore; noble, royal, honorable; to make , to form

Ph, intention

N, good, only

Y, bring

-t, you (personal pronoun)

tl, to elevate

Netror, name of person

Slo, meritorious

You can find a short Meroitic vocabulary at the following site:
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/meroitic.pdf

It should be noted that in Mr. Winters' translation of the same 'Graffito', he doesn't have the inscriptional Meroitic word for 'dog', which is why he places the term 'dog' in brackets, as he did with the terms "of rabbit with"; he apparently presumes that neither 'dog' or 'of rabbit with' were actually written out in Meroitic letters, but rather, were communicated by the images or animations themselves. Naturally, this would indirectly imply that the Meroites had no actual words for either "dog" and "of rabbit with", and hence, had to resort to animation to communicate those terms. Clyde himself verifies this point so:

I placed the dog and rabbit in brackets because these are pictures. — Clyde Winters

Needless to reiterate, Mr. Rilly's translation sharply contrasts Clyde's, whereby he actually identifies the term "wle" as the equivalent of 'dog'.

To ascertain how Mr. Rilly likely read the 'Graffito' inscription , the present author had decided to independently demonstrate to Mr. Winters, as to how the present author himself reads the inscriptions of the "Grafitto", with the help of the well known Meroitic letters, as presented in the visual aid above. This is how it went:

In the order that the present author can read the terms, undoubtedly using the following visual aid of the 'Grafitto',…

...on the left hand corner, below the dog and rabbit image, the present author sees:

#1. o l(a) se/s(a) r(a) o r(a) t(a) ny(a)/ne

Above the letters just mentioned, right next to the dog’s tail and hind limbs, the present author sees three parallel lines, which according to the table is:

#2. y(a)

Then to the lower right hand corner, the present author comes across:

#3. t(a) l(a) t(a)

Right above ‘t l t’, as far as the present author can tell, are the signs for what appears to closely resemble the sign for p(a), then some *unfamiliar* sign, and then what most closely resembles the n(a) sign, so that the present author comes up with the following,...

#4. p(a) *^[see below for details] n(a)

Right above the dog’s tail, the signs appear to read:

#5. o o q(a)

And at either the tip or the end of the dog’s tail on the right hand side, above the cluster on the lower right hand side, the signs appear to read:

#6. e l(a) w(a)

Note: "*" means the sign is unfamiliar to me.

Re-arranging the above, as far as the present author can tell, going back to...

#1. "o l(a) se/s(a) r(a) o r(a) t(a) ny(a)/ne" is likely what Rilly wrote out as 'Netror-se-l-o'.

#2. "y"; don't know what Rilly has interpreted this sign to be; it is either what he was interpreting as "bought" with question marks next to it—perhaps as an indication of uncertainty on his part, or the number "3". the present author is inclined to take it that Rilly was interpreting "y" as the number "three".

#3. "t(a) l(a) t(a)" is what I suspect Rilly wrote down as "tlt".

#4. "p(a) * n(a)" is what I presume Rilly to have written down as "phn".

#5. "o o q(a)" is probably what Rilly simply noted as "qo".

#6. "e l(a) w(a)" is most likely what was written down as "wle".

The letters above seem to read from right to left, in this instance.

Reading from top to bottom, and from right to left, the assembled letters read:

Topmost line, from right to left: Wle qo; 2nd line top, from right to left: phn y ["y", that Rilly either reads as "brought (???)" or "3"?; again, the present author is inclined to read his interpretation of the sign corresponding to "y" as the synonym for the number "3", and "phn" as "bought" ]; lower lines, from right to left: tlt Netror-se-l-o

Synopsis:
If Mr. Rilly's reading of "y" happened to be that of equating it with the number "three", then Clyde Winters would be correct in noting that it appears to be inconsistent with the "y" sign noted in the visual aid table of Meroitic letters presented above. However, again, Rilly makes it clear that his targeted emphasis in the translated text of the "Graffito" inscription was vis-à-vis the terms "wle qo" ~ "this dog", and hence, that these were the terms he *specifically* sought to inform his audience as being the words whose meanings were "assured" through the translation methodology he applied. "Wle qo" ~ "this dog" are the target words that Mr. Rilly sought to use in his multi-contextual method in classifying Meroitic language; the rest of the text was nonetheless translated for the heck of it—that is, were not targeted to be used in the said multi-contextual method. So, whether or not the sign constituting the three parallel lines [denoted by "y" according to the tables provided] were misinterpreted by Mr. Rilly in his translations, it has no bearing on the multi-contextual approach used to aid in the classification of Meroitic, and not the wholesale decipher of Meroitic—as Mr. Winters wrongly insists. Plus, Meroitic was classified using actual Meroitic texts, with some aid of Kemetic texts dating back to the eras of heightened bilateral Kemetian interactions with the Kushites, for better or worse—NOT, as Clyde wrongly insists, using Proto-Meroitic, Nubian, Proto-NES, Proto-Nilo-Saharan, much less Kharosthi script, to decipher Meroitic. Hence, unlike Clyde, Mr. Rilly had no need to look thousands of miles away from the African continent, to identify the source of either the script or the language elements of Meroitic, because quite frankly, these were to be found in the Nile Valley itself, should one sought to available oneself of basic research!
____________________________________________________________
*References:
— http://www.arkamani.org/arkamani-library/meroitic/rilly.htm

— Previous personal exchanges with Mr. Winters.