So, Afroasiatic... is it really legit?

[KathTheDragon]

You're making assumptions about the structure of the family, which are based solely on Afrosemitic being added in after everything else. As I said, there are good reasons to consider that it is not a single unitary branch. Pick two Afrosemitic languages (that aren't immediately closely related) and they'll be more dissimilar than two Central Semitic languages.

Moreover, most of these languages are poorly documented, which makes it easier to come up with bs theories about subgrouping.

[bradrn]

The Levant region contains two primary branches of Semitic; Africa contains only one part of one group (which may not even be a primary branch). The north-western area of the map is clearly most diverse.

That map is conflating five thousand years of history in about the busiest area of the world.

If you look at 3000 BCE, it's pretty simple: Eastern in Mesopotamia, Central in Canaan/Arabia, and Southern in S. Arabia/Africa.

And if you look at 2000 CE, it's also pretty simple, because there's no Eastern subfamily at all.

In between, the only real overlap is due to Eblaite, which isn't attested past the -23C BCE. So the overlap is just part of the long process of Central languages replacing Eastern ones.

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’. And even if you do go back to 3000 BCE, the Levant is more diverse than S. Arabia (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

You're making assumptions about the structure of the family, which are based solely on Afrosemitic being added in after everything else. As I said, there are good reasons to consider that it is not a single unitary branch. Pick two Afrosemitic languages (that aren't immediately closely related) and they'll be more dissimilar than two Central Semitic languages.

Hmm, this is a more convincing argument though… I had assumed that by now South Arabian was well-established as being coherent. (I know you mentioned this point earlier, but I think I must have misinterpreted you at the time.) But yes, if it isn’t monophyletic, that’s a strong argument for Semitic having originated in Africa.

[Raphael]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’.

OK, then we get to the question of whether it really makes sense to try to draw a map that shows all languages from a specific family no matter when they were spoken.

[WeepingElf]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’.

OK, then we get to the question of whether it really makes sense to try to draw a map that shows all languages from a specific family no matter when they were spoken.

Well, the extinct languages are at least clearly marked as such, though these are not all from the same time, which is not obvious from the map.

[zompist]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’. And even if you do go back to 3000 BCE, the Levant is more diverse than S. Arabia (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

"The Levant" is most of the map. I could equally say that Arabia is more diverse than Canaan (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

Edit: if you're just looking at overlapping areas, another is... South Arabia, which speaks Arabic today!

[bradrn]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’. And even if you do go back to 3000 BCE, the Levant is more diverse than S. Arabia (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

"The Levant" is most of the map. I could equally say that Arabia is more diverse than Canaan (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

Perhaps I was using the term wrong, but by ‘Levant’ I was referring to the area between, oh, let’s say Gaza in the SW and Mesopotamia in the NE. Assuming you accept South Arabian as monophyletic, this area has always been more diverse than Africa/South Arabia.

Edit: if you're just looking at overlapping areas, another is... South Arabia, which speaks Arabic today!

In general, I’m not ‘just looking at overlapping areas’ — I’m trying to apply the criterion that language families are most diverse around where they originated. If you accept the traditional division of Semitic into East/Central/South Semitic with East basal, then Africa/South Arabia has only South Semitic and one language from Central Semitic (which is known to have expanded from the NW recently), whereas the Levant region contains all of Central Semitic and all of East Semitic, making it more diverse by far.

[Nortaneous]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’. And even if you do go back to 3000 BCE, the Levant is more diverse than S. Arabia (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

This would put the IE Urheimat in the Balkans - it's where IE is most diverse. (Or maybe Turkey, if you account for archaisms and if Anatolian isn't a clade, but that's still wrong.)

[bradrn]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’. And even if you do go back to 3000 BCE, the Levant is more diverse than S. Arabia (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

This would put the IE Urheimat in the Balkans - it's where IE is most diverse. (Or maybe Turkey, if you account for archaisms and if Anatolian isn't a clade, but that's still wrong.)

OK, let’s have a look at a map of IE languages:



So there is clearly one area which is more diverse, but I wouldn’t merely call it the ‘Balkans’ — it’s the whole area between Albania and Armenia, containing Albanian, Greek, Anatolian and Armenian (and parts of Slavic and Iranian as well). I should note that this area has in fact been suggested as a location for PIE (the ‘Anatolian hypothesis’) — but it’s still remarkably close to the Kurgan region, which is just on the other size of the Black Sea. In fact, nearly every suggested IE Urheimat has been in or near this region; it’s not like anyone’s seriously advocating an origin in Spain or India or Lithuania or something like that. So, OK, I will accept that this method is limited in how far it can pinpoint a specific place, but it’s not useless either.

[Nortaneous]

But why does this matter? The map is clearly meant to show all Semitic languages, not ‘Semitic languages spoken at such-and-such a time’. And even if you do go back to 3000 BCE, the Levant is more diverse than S. Arabia (the former has two branches, the latter has one).

This would put the IE Urheimat in the Balkans - it's where IE is most diverse. (Or maybe Turkey, if you account for archaisms and if Anatolian isn't a clade, but that's still wrong.)

OK, let’s have a look at a map of IE languages:



So there is clearly one area which is more diverse, but I wouldn’t merely call it the ‘Balkans’ — it’s the whole area between Albania and Armenia, containing Albanian, Greek, Anatolian and Armenian (and parts of Slavic and Iranian as well). I should note that this area has in fact been suggested as a location for PIE (the ‘Anatolian hypothesis’) — but it’s still remarkably close to the Kurgan region, which is just on the other size of the Black Sea. In fact, nearly every suggested IE Urheimat has been in or near this region; it’s not like anyone’s seriously advocating an origin in Spain or India or Lithuania or something like that. So, OK, I will accept that this method is limited in how far it can pinpoint a specific place, but it’s not useless either.

Doesn't show all branches of IE, and specifically doesn't include the extinct Paleo-Balkan languages, or the historical ranges of Celtic and Armenian, both of which used to extend fairly far into Turkey. And what "just"? Boston is closer to Atlanta than Skopje is to Krasnodar, at least by land.

[Howl]

which is actually pretty plausible, if you assume a Semitic Urheimat in the Levant.

And if, as says my friend who's a speaker of Tigrinya and who I trust to have a better grasp of how Afrosemitic forces a reconsideration of all the "facts" about Semitic than anyone else I know, we assume a Semitic Urheimat in the Horn of Africa, what does that mean for the plausibility of this idea?

... Non-African Semitic is really not that diverse at all, while Afrosemitic is diverse to the point of raising doubts that it's even a unitary branch.

You're making assumptions about the structure of the family, which are based solely on Afrosemitic being added in after everything else. As I said, there are good reasons to consider that it is not a single unitary branch. Pick two Afrosemitic languages (that aren't immediately closely related) and they'll be more dissimilar than two Central Semitic languages.

Moreover, most of these languages are poorly documented, which makes it easier to come up with bs theories about subgrouping.

I have been trying to find anything supporting these views in the scientific literature, but I couldn't find much. The only thing I could find is a very plausible theory by Roger Blench ("Semitic upside down") that Modern South Arabic was from a back-migration from Africa. And researchers have known about Ethiosemitic (Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya etc.) for decades, and applied that knowledge to the Semitic language family. So what is new? Also most Northern Semitic languages (i.e. East and Central Semitic in the mainstream classification) have been attested milennia ago, while Ethiosemitic (except for Ge'ez) is only atttested very recently. So Ethiosemitic had a lot of extra time to diverge. Looking at the map, the Ethiosemitic-speaking area cuts through the Cushitic-speaking area with Beja in the North-West, Oromo in the South and Afar in the East. To me that makes it way more likely that Ethiosemitic was brought to Africa by an incursion from Southern Arabia than that Semitic originated there.

[Travis B.]

Looking at the map, the Ethiosemitic-speaking area cuts through the Cushitic-speaking area with Beja in the North-West, Oromo in the South and Afar in the East. To me that makes it way more likely that Ethiosemitic was brought to Africa by an incursion from Southern Arabia than that Semitic originated there.

There are also some Cushitic minority languages (e.g. Agaw languages) stuck right in the middle of the Ethiosemitic-speaking area, such as the moribund Qimant, which make it seem that Ethiosemitic expanded into these areas rather than originated in them.

[KathTheDragon]

<snip>

I'd love to keep arguing this, but I'm not the expert, and repeating what the expert says takes up way too much time.

[bradrn]

This would put the IE Urheimat in the Balkans - it's where IE is most diverse. (Or maybe Turkey, if you account for archaisms and if Anatolian isn't a clade, but that's still wrong.)

OK, let’s have a look at a map of IE languages:

So there is clearly one area which is more diverse, but I wouldn’t merely call it the ‘Balkans’ — it’s the whole area between Albania and Armenia, containing Albanian, Greek, Anatolian and Armenian (and parts of Slavic and Iranian as well). I should note that this area has in fact been suggested as a location for PIE (the ‘Anatolian hypothesis’) — but it’s still remarkably close to the Kurgan region, which is just on the other size of the Black Sea. In fact, nearly every suggested IE Urheimat has been in or near this region; it’s not like anyone’s seriously advocating an origin in Spain or India or Lithuania or something like that. So, OK, I will accept that this method is limited in how far it can pinpoint a specific place, but it’s not useless either.

Doesn't show all branches of IE, and specifically doesn't include the extinct Paleo-Balkan languages

OK, but the picture doesn’t really change too much if you add these in, right?

or the historical ranges of Celtic and Armenian, both of which used to extend fairly far into Turkey.

Celtic, yes, though that seems to have been a back-migration from Gaul. But I can’t find anything about Armenian; do you have any more details about that?

And what "just"? Boston is closer to Atlanta than Skopje is to Krasnodar, at least by land.

I suggest looking at it relative to the size of the language family: the Black Sea is pretty large in absolute terms, sure, but it’s a pretty small distance compared to the size of the average IE branch — even accounting for the fact that IE branches have greatly expanded in historical timescales — so it seems pretty plausible to me for the centre of diversity to be around about that distance from the Urheimat. Applying this methodology to Semitic would then give an Urheimat somewhere in the region between Egypt, Arabia and the Caucasus… which sounds pretty plausible, actually.

<snip>

I'd love to keep arguing this, but I'm not the expert, and repeating what the expert says takes up way too much time.

Do you at least have some references from the literature which we can read through?

[Pabappa]

armenia was once much larger, yes .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_o ... granes.gif

[KathTheDragon]

<snip>

I'd love to keep arguing this, but I'm not the expert, and repeating what the expert says takes up way too much time.

Do you at least have some references from the literature which we can read through?

To cut a long story short, no not really. What my friend knows, they've largely had to figure out for themselves due to exactly that lack. They say these ideas have been present in one form or another as suggestions of ideas, but there's a certain amount of "do not challenge the orthodoxy or else" present with certain topics that basically preclude there being thorough descriptions of why the established view of Semitic may be wrong.

[WeepingElf]

Is this perhaps a misunderstanding? Did your friend or his source confound Semitic, which is most diverse outside Africa and widely held to originate in the Near East, and Afroasiatic (earlier called Hamito-Semitic), which is most diverse within Africa and most likely originated there (even if people like Bomhard maintain a Near Eastern origin of Afroasiatic as a whole)?

[KathTheDragon]

I... no. No he hasn't. He knows what the difference is.

[dɮ the phoneme]

I... no. No he hasn't. He knows what the difference is.

Does this have an online presence? I feel like I may be familiar with who you're talking about, if so.

[KathTheDragon]

I... no. No he hasn't. He knows what the difference is.

Does this have an online presence? I feel like I may be familiar with who you're talking about, if so.

He used to, but shut it down ages ago.

[Zju]

I'd love to keep arguing this, but I'm not the expert, and repeating what the expert says takes up way too much time.

Do you at least have some references from the literature which we can read through?

To cut a long story short, no not really. What my friend knows, they've largely had to figure out for themselves due to exactly that lack. They say these ideas have been present in one form or another as suggestions of ideas, but there's a certain amount of "do not challenge the orthodoxy or else" present with certain topics that basically preclude there being thorough descriptions of why the established view of Semitic may be wrong.

Does this forum also count as conservative? Do you mind spilling the beans?