#geez — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #geez, aggregated by home.social.
-
#Ge'ez inscriptions along the top: dagəmawi mənelək nəguśä nägäśt zä-ʾityoṗya 'Menelik the second, King of Kings of Ethiopia' (left) moʿa ʾanbäsa zä-ʾəm-nägädä yəhuda 'The lion that is from the tribe of Judah has conquered' (right)
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2bgp6ilfohfngg6ehiyqctxt/post/3mk3n2ya6yk2b -
#Ge'ez inscriptions along the top: dagəmawi mənelək nəguśä nägäśt zä-ʾityoṗya 'Menelik the second, King of Kings of Ethiopia' (left) moʿa ʾanbäsa zä-ʾəm-nägädä yəhuda 'The lion that is from the tribe of Judah has conquered' (right)
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2bgp6ilfohfngg6ehiyqctxt/post/3mk3n2ya6yk2b -
#Ge'ez inscriptions along the top: dagəmawi mənelək nəguśä nägäśt zä-ʾityoṗya 'Menelik the second, King of Kings of Ethiopia' (left) moʿa ʾanbäsa zä-ʾəm-nägädä yəhuda 'The lion that is from the tribe of Judah has conquered' (right)
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2bgp6ilfohfngg6ehiyqctxt/post/3mk3n2ya6yk2b -
#Ge'ez inscriptions along the top: dagəmawi mənelək nəguśä nägäśt zä-ʾityoṗya 'Menelik the second, King of Kings of Ethiopia' (left) moʿa ʾanbäsa zä-ʾəm-nägädä yəhuda 'The lion that is from the tribe of Judah has conquered' (right)
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2bgp6ilfohfngg6ehiyqctxt/post/3mk3n2ya6yk2b -
#Ge'ez inscriptions along the top: dagəmawi mənelək nəguśä nägäśt zä-ʾityoṗya 'Menelik the second, King of Kings of Ethiopia' (left) moʿa ʾanbäsa zä-ʾəm-nägädä yəhuda 'The lion that is from the tribe of Judah has conquered' (right)
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2bgp6ilfohfngg6ehiyqctxt/post/3mk3n2ya6yk2b -
Transcription of the #Ge'ez: qəddəst śəllase
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5ap4d3goxphqsmt2xzse27f2/post/3ma7l7irip22t -
Transcription of the #Ge'ez: qəddəst śəllase
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5ap4d3goxphqsmt2xzse27f2/post/3ma7l7irip22t -
Transcription of the #Ge'ez: qəddəst śəllase
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5ap4d3goxphqsmt2xzse27f2/post/3ma7l7irip22t -
Transcription of the #Ge'ez: qəddəst śəllase
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5ap4d3goxphqsmt2xzse27f2/post/3ma7l7irip22t -
Transcription of the #Ge'ez: qəddəst śəllase
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5ap4d3goxphqsmt2xzse27f2/post/3ma7l7irip22t -
New paper on ordinals
This blog post is now a paper, which came out unexpectedly soon: ‘Ordinal Numerals as a Criterion for Subclassification: The Case of Semitic’.
Abstract: This article explores how ordinal numerals (like first, second and third) can help classify languages, focusing on the Semitic language family. Ordinals are often formed according to productive derivational processes, but as a separate word class, they may retain archaic morphology that is otherwise lost from the language. Together with the high propensity of ‘first’ and, less frequently, ‘second’ to be formed through suppletion, this makes them highly valuable for diachronic linguistic analysis. The article identifies four main patterns of ordinal formation across different Semitic languages. Together with innovations in the lowest two ordinals, these can be correlated with more and less accepted subgroupings within Semitic as a whole. Concretely, they offer support for the widely accepted West Semitic, Northwest Semitic and Abyssinian (Ethio-Semitic) clades as well as the recently proposed Aramaeo-Canaanite clade and provide new evidence for the further subclassification of Abyssinian that matches other recent proposals. However, no evidence was found to support the debated Central Semitic or South Semitic groupings. Given the accurate identification of accepted subgroupings and high level of detail, this approach holds promise for the classification of other language families, especially where other linguistic data are scarce.
Enjoy!
#Akkadian #Amharic #AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthArabian #news #ProtoSemitic #Ugaritic
-
New paper on ordinals
This blog post is now a paper, which came out unexpectedly soon: ‘Ordinal Numerals as a Criterion for Subclassification: The Case of Semitic’.
Abstract: This article explores how ordinal numerals (like first, second and third) can help classify languages, focusing on the Semitic language family. Ordinals are often formed according to productive derivational processes, but as a separate word class, they may retain archaic morphology that is otherwise lost from the language. Together with the high propensity of ‘first’ and, less frequently, ‘second’ to be formed through suppletion, this makes them highly valuable for diachronic linguistic analysis. The article identifies four main patterns of ordinal formation across different Semitic languages. Together with innovations in the lowest two ordinals, these can be correlated with more and less accepted subgroupings within Semitic as a whole. Concretely, they offer support for the widely accepted West Semitic, Northwest Semitic and Abyssinian (Ethio-Semitic) clades as well as the recently proposed Aramaeo-Canaanite clade and provide new evidence for the further subclassification of Abyssinian that matches other recent proposals. However, no evidence was found to support the debated Central Semitic or South Semitic groupings. Given the accurate identification of accepted subgroupings and high level of detail, this approach holds promise for the classification of other language families, especially where other linguistic data are scarce.
Enjoy!
#Akkadian #Amharic #AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthArabian #news #ProtoSemitic #Ugaritic
-
New paper on ordinals
This blog post is now a paper, which came out unexpectedly soon: ‘Ordinal Numerals as a Criterion for Subclassification: The Case of Semitic’.
Abstract: This article explores how ordinal numerals (like first, second and third) can help classify languages, focusing on the Semitic language family. Ordinals are often formed according to productive derivational processes, but as a separate word class, they may retain archaic morphology that is otherwise lost from the language. Together with the high propensity of ‘first’ and, less frequently, ‘second’ to be formed through suppletion, this makes them highly valuable for diachronic linguistic analysis. The article identifies four main patterns of ordinal formation across different Semitic languages. Together with innovations in the lowest two ordinals, these can be correlated with more and less accepted subgroupings within Semitic as a whole. Concretely, they offer support for the widely accepted West Semitic, Northwest Semitic and Abyssinian (Ethio-Semitic) clades as well as the recently proposed Aramaeo-Canaanite clade and provide new evidence for the further subclassification of Abyssinian that matches other recent proposals. However, no evidence was found to support the debated Central Semitic or South Semitic groupings. Given the accurate identification of accepted subgroupings and high level of detail, this approach holds promise for the classification of other language families, especially where other linguistic data are scarce.
Enjoy!
#Akkadian #Amharic #AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthArabian #news #ProtoSemitic #Ugaritic
-
New paper on ordinals
This blog post is now a paper, which came out unexpectedly soon: ‘Ordinal Numerals as a Criterion for Subclassification: The Case of Semitic’.
Abstract: This article explores how ordinal numerals (like first, second and third) can help classify languages, focusing on the Semitic language family. Ordinals are often formed according to productive derivational processes, but as a separate word class, they may retain archaic morphology that is otherwise lost from the language. Together with the high propensity of ‘first’ and, less frequently, ‘second’ to be formed through suppletion, this makes them highly valuable for diachronic linguistic analysis. The article identifies four main patterns of ordinal formation across different Semitic languages. Together with innovations in the lowest two ordinals, these can be correlated with more and less accepted subgroupings within Semitic as a whole. Concretely, they offer support for the widely accepted West Semitic, Northwest Semitic and Abyssinian (Ethio-Semitic) clades as well as the recently proposed Aramaeo-Canaanite clade and provide new evidence for the further subclassification of Abyssinian that matches other recent proposals. However, no evidence was found to support the debated Central Semitic or South Semitic groupings. Given the accurate identification of accepted subgroupings and high level of detail, this approach holds promise for the classification of other language families, especially where other linguistic data are scarce.
Enjoy!
#Akkadian #Amharic #AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthArabian #news #ProtoSemitic #Ugaritic
-
New paper on ordinals
This blog post is now a paper, which came out unexpectedly soon: ‘Ordinal Numerals as a Criterion for Subclassification: The Case of Semitic’.
Abstract: This article explores how ordinal numerals (like first, second and third) can help classify languages, focusing on the Semitic language family. Ordinals are often formed according to productive derivational processes, but as a separate word class, they may retain archaic morphology that is otherwise lost from the language. Together with the high propensity of ‘first’ and, less frequently, ‘second’ to be formed through suppletion, this makes them highly valuable for diachronic linguistic analysis. The article identifies four main patterns of ordinal formation across different Semitic languages. Together with innovations in the lowest two ordinals, these can be correlated with more and less accepted subgroupings within Semitic as a whole. Concretely, they offer support for the widely accepted West Semitic, Northwest Semitic and Abyssinian (Ethio-Semitic) clades as well as the recently proposed Aramaeo-Canaanite clade and provide new evidence for the further subclassification of Abyssinian that matches other recent proposals. However, no evidence was found to support the debated Central Semitic or South Semitic groupings. Given the accurate identification of accepted subgroupings and high level of detail, this approach holds promise for the classification of other language families, especially where other linguistic data are scarce.
Enjoy!
#Akkadian #Amharic #AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthArabian #news #ProtoSemitic #Ugaritic
-
-
West Virginia deploys over 300 #NationalGuard troops to #DC on #DictatorDon's say-so.
Remember his #Jan6 claim that only Nancy #Pelosi had the authority to call up the Nat'l Guard to protect DC?
#Geez, I don't know if #MAGAts are more gullable or more stupid for believing his bull$#!+.
-
West Virginia deploys over 300 #NationalGuard troops to #DC on #DictatorDon's say-so.
Remember his #Jan6 claim that only Nancy #Pelosi had the authority to call up the Nat'l Guard to protect DC?
#Geez, I don't know if #MAGAts are more gullable or more stupid for believing his bull$#!+.
-
West Virginia deploys over 300 #NationalGuard troops to #DC on #DictatorDon's say-so.
Remember his #Jan6 claim that only Nancy #Pelosi had the authority to call up the Nat'l Guard to protect DC?
#Geez, I don't know if #MAGAts are more gullable or more stupid for believing his bull$#!+.
-
West Virginia deploys over 300 #NationalGuard troops to #DC on #DictatorDon's say-so.
Remember his #Jan6 claim that only Nancy #Pelosi had the authority to call up the Nat'l Guard to protect DC?
#Geez, I don't know if #MAGAts are more gullable or more stupid for believing his bull$#!+.
-
West Virginia deploys over 300 #NationalGuard troops to #DC on #DictatorDon's say-so.
Remember his #Jan6 claim that only Nancy #Pelosi had the authority to call up the Nat'l Guard to protect DC?
#Geez, I don't know if #MAGAts are more gullable or more stupid for believing his bull$#!+.
-
New publications and podcast
Busy year for publications (think that’s it for me this year):
Semitic *ʾilāh- and Hebrew אלהים: From plural ‘gods’ to singular ‘God’ (Open Access)
Abstract: The Biblical Hebrew word אלהים is plural in form. Semantically and syntactically, however, it can be plural or singular. The stem of this noun can be reconstructed as * ʾilāh-. As already noted by Wellhausen, this looks like a broken plural of *ʾil-, the Proto-Semitic word for ‘god’. This article takes Wellhausen’s observation and uses it to explain the plural morphology of Hebrew אלהים. I argue that *ʾilāh- should be reconstructed with redundant plural suffixes in some parts of the paradigm. This reconstructed paradigm is preserved virtually unchanged in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. The reconstructed paradigm also explains the almost complete replacement of *ʾil- by *ʾilāh- in Aramaic and Arabic and allows us to reassess the reasons for the association between the lexeme ‘god’ and plural number. Consequently, earlier suggestions that see אלהים’s plural number as a reflection of pre-Yahwistic polytheism or as a marker of abstractness are no longer tenable.
The varying size of the Sodom coalition in Genesis 14 (in FS Tigchelaar; email me for a PDF)
Trying my hardest to find something that might interest newly retired KU Leuven professor Eibert Tigchelaar, I used some Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature as well as other textual and linguistic evidence to seek for order in the number of kings on Sodom’s side in Gen 14. Turns out that this closely aligns with other indications of different layers in this fascinating chapter: one about a local raid, one that may be a reworking of a lost epic, and a third one building on the combination of the first two. If you understand Dutch (or want to practice!), also check out this brand new episode of Timo Epping’s Oudheid, all about this question.
#AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #Bible #Canaanite #GeEz #Genesis #Hebrew #Hosea #linguistics #news #Phoenician #ProtoSemitic
-
New publications and podcast
Busy year for publications (think that’s it for me this year):
Semitic *ʾilāh- and Hebrew אלהים: From plural ‘gods’ to singular ‘God’ (Open Access)
Abstract: The Biblical Hebrew word אלהים is plural in form. Semantically and syntactically, however, it can be plural or singular. The stem of this noun can be reconstructed as * ʾilāh-. As already noted by Wellhausen, this looks like a broken plural of *ʾil-, the Proto-Semitic word for ‘god’. This article takes Wellhausen’s observation and uses it to explain the plural morphology of Hebrew אלהים. I argue that *ʾilāh- should be reconstructed with redundant plural suffixes in some parts of the paradigm. This reconstructed paradigm is preserved virtually unchanged in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. The reconstructed paradigm also explains the almost complete replacement of *ʾil- by *ʾilāh- in Aramaic and Arabic and allows us to reassess the reasons for the association between the lexeme ‘god’ and plural number. Consequently, earlier suggestions that see אלהים’s plural number as a reflection of pre-Yahwistic polytheism or as a marker of abstractness are no longer tenable.
The varying size of the Sodom coalition in Genesis 14 (in FS Tigchelaar; email me for a PDF)
Trying my hardest to find something that might interest newly retired KU Leuven professor Eibert Tigchelaar, I used some Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature as well as other textual and linguistic evidence to seek for order in the number of kings on Sodom’s side in Gen 14. Turns out that this closely aligns with other indications of different layers in this fascinating chapter: one about a local raid, one that may be a reworking of a lost epic, and a third one building on the combination of the first two. If you understand Dutch (or want to practice!), also check out this brand new episode of Timo Epping’s Oudheid, all about this question.
#AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #Bible #Canaanite #GeEz #Genesis #Hebrew #Hosea #linguistics #news #Phoenician #ProtoSemitic
-
New publications and podcast
Busy year for publications (think that’s it for me this year):
Semitic *ʾilāh- and Hebrew אלהים: From plural ‘gods’ to singular ‘God’ (Open Access)
Abstract: The Biblical Hebrew word אלהים is plural in form. Semantically and syntactically, however, it can be plural or singular. The stem of this noun can be reconstructed as * ʾilāh-. As already noted by Wellhausen, this looks like a broken plural of *ʾil-, the Proto-Semitic word for ‘god’. This article takes Wellhausen’s observation and uses it to explain the plural morphology of Hebrew אלהים. I argue that *ʾilāh- should be reconstructed with redundant plural suffixes in some parts of the paradigm. This reconstructed paradigm is preserved virtually unchanged in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. The reconstructed paradigm also explains the almost complete replacement of *ʾil- by *ʾilāh- in Aramaic and Arabic and allows us to reassess the reasons for the association between the lexeme ‘god’ and plural number. Consequently, earlier suggestions that see אלהים’s plural number as a reflection of pre-Yahwistic polytheism or as a marker of abstractness are no longer tenable.
The varying size of the Sodom coalition in Genesis 14 (in FS Tigchelaar; email me for a PDF)
Trying my hardest to find something that might interest newly retired KU Leuven professor Eibert Tigchelaar, I used some Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature as well as other textual and linguistic evidence to seek for order in the number of kings on Sodom’s side in Gen 14. Turns out that this closely aligns with other indications of different layers in this fascinating chapter: one about a local raid, one that may be a reworking of a lost epic, and a third one building on the combination of the first two. If you understand Dutch (or want to practice!), also check out this brand new episode of Timo Epping’s Oudheid, all about this question.
#AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #Bible #Canaanite #GeEz #Genesis #Hebrew #Hosea #linguistics #news #Phoenician #ProtoSemitic
-
New publications and podcast
Busy year for publications (think that’s it for me this year):
Semitic *ʾilāh- and Hebrew אלהים: From plural ‘gods’ to singular ‘God’ (Open Access)
Abstract: The Biblical Hebrew word אלהים is plural in form. Semantically and syntactically, however, it can be plural or singular. The stem of this noun can be reconstructed as * ʾilāh-. As already noted by Wellhausen, this looks like a broken plural of *ʾil-, the Proto-Semitic word for ‘god’. This article takes Wellhausen’s observation and uses it to explain the plural morphology of Hebrew אלהים. I argue that *ʾilāh- should be reconstructed with redundant plural suffixes in some parts of the paradigm. This reconstructed paradigm is preserved virtually unchanged in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. The reconstructed paradigm also explains the almost complete replacement of *ʾil- by *ʾilāh- in Aramaic and Arabic and allows us to reassess the reasons for the association between the lexeme ‘god’ and plural number. Consequently, earlier suggestions that see אלהים’s plural number as a reflection of pre-Yahwistic polytheism or as a marker of abstractness are no longer tenable.
The varying size of the Sodom coalition in Genesis 14 (in FS Tigchelaar; email me for a PDF)
Trying my hardest to find something that might interest newly retired KU Leuven professor Eibert Tigchelaar, I used some Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature as well as other textual and linguistic evidence to seek for order in the number of kings on Sodom’s side in Gen 14. Turns out that this closely aligns with other indications of different layers in this fascinating chapter: one about a local raid, one that may be a reworking of a lost epic, and a third one building on the combination of the first two. If you understand Dutch (or want to practice!), also check out this brand new episode of Timo Epping’s Oudheid, all about this question.
#AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #Bible #Canaanite #GeEz #Genesis #Hebrew #Hosea #linguistics #news #Phoenician #ProtoSemitic
-
New publications and podcast
Busy year for publications (think that’s it for me this year):
Semitic *ʾilāh- and Hebrew אלהים: From plural ‘gods’ to singular ‘God’ (Open Access)
Abstract: The Biblical Hebrew word אלהים is plural in form. Semantically and syntactically, however, it can be plural or singular. The stem of this noun can be reconstructed as * ʾilāh-. As already noted by Wellhausen, this looks like a broken plural of *ʾil-, the Proto-Semitic word for ‘god’. This article takes Wellhausen’s observation and uses it to explain the plural morphology of Hebrew אלהים. I argue that *ʾilāh- should be reconstructed with redundant plural suffixes in some parts of the paradigm. This reconstructed paradigm is preserved virtually unchanged in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. The reconstructed paradigm also explains the almost complete replacement of *ʾil- by *ʾilāh- in Aramaic and Arabic and allows us to reassess the reasons for the association between the lexeme ‘god’ and plural number. Consequently, earlier suggestions that see אלהים’s plural number as a reflection of pre-Yahwistic polytheism or as a marker of abstractness are no longer tenable.
The varying size of the Sodom coalition in Genesis 14 (in FS Tigchelaar; email me for a PDF)
Trying my hardest to find something that might interest newly retired KU Leuven professor Eibert Tigchelaar, I used some Dead Sea Scrolls and other Second Temple literature as well as other textual and linguistic evidence to seek for order in the number of kings on Sodom’s side in Gen 14. Turns out that this closely aligns with other indications of different layers in this fascinating chapter: one about a local raid, one that may be a reworking of a lost epic, and a third one building on the combination of the first two. If you understand Dutch (or want to practice!), also check out this brand new episode of Timo Epping’s Oudheid, all about this question.
#AncientSouthArabian #Arabic #Aramaic #Bible #Canaanite #GeEz #Genesis #Hebrew #Hosea #linguistics #news #Phoenician #ProtoSemitic
-
The Linguistic Politics of Ethiopian Philosophy:
Navigating Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization between Ge’ez, Amharic and EnglishFasil Merawi (Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia)
Jonathan Egid (SOAS University of London)July 10, 2025, 2:15 pm (CEST)
Cultural Campus, Aula & Live Stream#africanphilosophy #amharic #Ethiopia #geez #linguistics
#politics -
The Linguistic Politics of Ethiopian Philosophy:
Navigating Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization between Ge’ez, Amharic and EnglishFasil Merawi (Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia)
Jonathan Egid (SOAS University of London)July 10, 2025, 2:15 pm (CEST)
Cultural Campus, Aula & Live Stream#africanphilosophy #amharic #Ethiopia #geez #linguistics
#politics -
The Linguistic Politics of Ethiopian Philosophy:
Navigating Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization between Ge’ez, Amharic and EnglishFasil Merawi (Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia)
Jonathan Egid (SOAS University of London)July 10, 2025, 2:15 pm (CEST)
Cultural Campus, Aula & Live Stream#africanphilosophy #amharic #Ethiopia #geez #linguistics
#politics -
The Linguistic Politics of Ethiopian Philosophy:
Navigating Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization between Ge’ez, Amharic and EnglishFasil Merawi (Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia)
Jonathan Egid (SOAS University of London)July 10, 2025, 2:15 pm (CEST)
Cultural Campus, Aula & Live Stream#africanphilosophy #amharic #Ethiopia #geez #linguistics
#politics -
The Linguistic Politics of Ethiopian Philosophy:
Navigating Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization between Ge’ez, Amharic and EnglishFasil Merawi (Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia)
Jonathan Egid (SOAS University of London)July 10, 2025, 2:15 pm (CEST)
Cultural Campus, Aula & Live Stream#africanphilosophy #amharic #Ethiopia #geez #linguistics
#politics -
Leiden Summer School 2025
The program for this year’s Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics is up. Besides the Caucasian, Chinese, Language Description, Language Documentation, Indo-European (I/II), Celtic, Indology, Iranian, Linguistics (I/II), Mediterranean World, and Russian tracks, here’s the line-up for Semitic this year:
- An introduction to Arabic paleography and epigraphy (Ahmad Al-Jallad)
- Comparative Semitics (Marijn van Putten with guest lectures by me and maybe others)
- Rabbinic Hebrew (Martin Baasten)
- Classical Ethiopic (Martin Baasten)
Registration opens soon! The Summer School will run from July 21st through August 1st.
#Arabic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #news #ProtoSemitic #Rabbinic
-
Leiden Summer School 2025
The program for this year’s Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics is up. Besides the Caucasian, Chinese, Language Description, Language Documentation, Indo-European (I/II), Celtic, Indology, Iranian, Linguistics (I/II), Mediterranean World, and Russian tracks, here’s the line-up for Semitic this year:
- An introduction to Arabic paleography and epigraphy (Ahmad Al-Jallad)
- Comparative Semitics (Marijn van Putten with guest lectures by me and maybe others)
- Rabbinic Hebrew (Martin Baasten)
- Classical Ethiopic (Martin Baasten)
Registration opens soon! The Summer School will run from July 21st through August 1st.
#Arabic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #news #ProtoSemitic #Rabbinic
-
Leiden Summer School 2025
The program for this year’s Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics is up. Besides the Caucasian, Chinese, Language Description, Language Documentation, Indo-European (I/II), Celtic, Indology, Iranian, Linguistics (I/II), Mediterranean World, and Russian tracks, here’s the line-up for Semitic this year:
- An introduction to Arabic paleography and epigraphy (Ahmad Al-Jallad)
- Comparative Semitics (Marijn van Putten with guest lectures by me and maybe others)
- Rabbinic Hebrew (Martin Baasten)
- Classical Ethiopic (Martin Baasten)
Registration opens soon! The Summer School will run from July 21st through August 1st.
#Arabic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #news #ProtoSemitic #Rabbinic
-
Leiden Summer School 2025
The program for this year’s Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics is up. Besides the Caucasian, Chinese, Language Description, Language Documentation, Indo-European (I/II), Celtic, Indology, Iranian, Linguistics (I/II), Mediterranean World, and Russian tracks, here’s the line-up for Semitic this year:
- An introduction to Arabic paleography and epigraphy (Ahmad Al-Jallad)
- Comparative Semitics (Marijn van Putten with guest lectures by me and maybe others)
- Rabbinic Hebrew (Martin Baasten)
- Classical Ethiopic (Martin Baasten)
Registration opens soon! The Summer School will run from July 21st through August 1st.
#Arabic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #news #ProtoSemitic #Rabbinic
-
Leiden Summer School 2025
The program for this year’s Leiden Summer School in Languages and Linguistics is up. Besides the Caucasian, Chinese, Language Description, Language Documentation, Indo-European (I/II), Celtic, Indology, Iranian, Linguistics (I/II), Mediterranean World, and Russian tracks, here’s the line-up for Semitic this year:
- An introduction to Arabic paleography and epigraphy (Ahmad Al-Jallad)
- Comparative Semitics (Marijn van Putten with guest lectures by me and maybe others)
- Rabbinic Hebrew (Martin Baasten)
- Classical Ethiopic (Martin Baasten)
Registration opens soon! The Summer School will run from July 21st through August 1st.
#Arabic #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #news #ProtoSemitic #Rabbinic
-
The Semitic languages show a regular correspondence of p in some languages and f in others. For instance, ‘mouth’ in Akkadian is p-ū; Biblical Hebrew pe; Biblical Aramaic pūm; Ge’ez ʾäf;1 and Classical Arabic fam-. (Modern South Arabian should have an f too, but has replaced this word.) This sound is uncontroversially reconstructed as Proto-Semitic *p, as in *p-ūm ‘mouth’.2 Traditionally, the change of *p to f was taken as a diagnostic feature of the South Semitic languages.
This figure and the next adapted from Huehnergard & Rubin (2011).[p] to [f], a plosive changing into a fricative, is an example of lenition. Lenition is a common type of sound change, so we tell our students, so it makes sense that *p is the older sound and it changed to f. So far, so good.
While preparing my first couple of classes for Comparative Semitics this year, I suddenly wasn’t so sure about this anymore. Two things bother me:
- The examples of p > f I know about are all part of a larger change affecting other plosives too, like Grimm’s Law (Proto-Indo-European *p, *t, *k, *kw > Proto-Germanic *f, *þ, *h, *hw and related changes) or Aramaic and Hebrew BGDKPT-spirantization. Is just p turning to f really so common? How about just f turning into p?
- Most scholars don’t accept the family tree above anymore. In the current model, the changes look more like this:
Now we need three or four separate instances of *p > *f—just as I’m starting to doubt how common that change is. Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), who argue for this second family tree, explain this as an areal change that spread through contact. But what kind of a contact scenario should we think of here? Did f spread from Ancient South Arabian (if those languages even had it) to all its neighbours? It’s not like we see enough other shared contact features to confidently posit a South Semitic language area or something.
Looking at Afroasiatic, things don’t get better:
- Berber has f, not p
- Cushitic has f, not p
- Egyptian has p and f, but we don’t know which one corresponds to Semitic *p (if either)
- Chadic: same as Egyptian, to my knowledge
- (I’m not sure Omotic is Afroasiatic, still reading up on this)
So if we posit Proto-Semitic *p, either we need two more independent cases of *p > *f (Berber, Cushitic),3 maybe more (Egyptian? Chadic?), or we reconstruct *f for Proto-Afroasiatic and say Proto-Semitic changed *f to *p. At which point, why not cut out the middleman and keep *f, then change it to *p in East and Northwest Semitic? Just two changes instead of the minimum of six you need otherwise.
So, are there any good arguments to reconstruct Proto-Semitic *p—or should we press *f and leave behind this relic from theories that believed in a South Semitic subgrouping?
- Probably influenced by Cushitic, but we can still take it as related to the other Semitic words. ↩︎
- In my opinion, the only word known so far with a superheavy syllable, exceptionally permitted because the word is monosyllabic. ↩︎
- I’m also really starting to doubt that Cushitic is one family. So maybe make that four (Berber, Beja, Agaw, East/South Cushitic). ↩︎
https://bnuyaminim.wordpress.com/2024/11/07/froto-semitic/
#Afroasiatic #Agaw #Akkadian #Ancie #Arabic #Aramaic #Beja #Berber #Chadic #Cushitic #Egyptian #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthAr #Omotic #ProtoSemitic
-
The Semitic languages show a regular correspondence of p in some languages and f in others. For instance, ‘mouth’ in Akkadian is p-ū; Biblical Hebrew pe; Biblical Aramaic pūm; Ge’ez ʾäf;1 and Classical Arabic fam-. (Modern South Arabian should have an f too, but has replaced this word.) This sound is uncontroversially reconstructed as Proto-Semitic *p, as in *p-ūm ‘mouth’.2 Traditionally, the change of *p to f was taken as a diagnostic feature of the South Semitic languages.
This figure and the next adapted from Huehnergard & Rubin (2011).[p] to [f], a plosive changing into a fricative, is an example of lenition. Lenition is a common type of sound change, so we tell our students, so it makes sense that *p is the older sound and it changed to f. So far, so good.
While preparing my first couple of classes for Comparative Semitics this year, I suddenly wasn’t so sure about this anymore. Two things bother me:
- The examples of p > f I know about are all part of a larger change affecting other plosives too, like Grimm’s Law (Proto-Indo-European *p, *t, *k, *kw > Proto-Germanic *f, *þ, *h, *hw and related changes) or Aramaic and Hebrew BGDKPT-spirantization. Is just p turning to f really so common? How about just f turning into p?
- Most scholars don’t accept the family tree above anymore. In the current model, the changes look more like this:
Now we need three or four separate instances of *p > *f—just as I’m starting to doubt how common that change is. Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), who argue for this second family tree, explain this as an areal change that spread through contact. But what kind of a contact scenario should we think of here? Did f spread from Ancient South Arabian (if those languages even had it) to all its neighbours? It’s not like we see enough other shared contact features to confidently posit a South Semitic language area or something.
Looking at Afroasiatic, things don’t get better:
- Berber has f, not p
- Cushitic has f, not p
- Egyptian has p and f, but we don’t know which one corresponds to Semitic *p (if either)
- Chadic: same as Egyptian, to my knowledge
- (I’m not sure Omotic is Afroasiatic, still reading up on this)
So if we posit Proto-Semitic *p, either we need two more independent cases of *p > *f (Berber, Cushitic),3 maybe more (Egyptian? Chadic?), or we reconstruct *f for Proto-Afroasiatic and say Proto-Semitic changed *f to *p. At which point, why not cut out the middleman and keep *f, then change it to *p in East and Northwest Semitic? Just two changes instead of the minimum of six you need otherwise.
So, are there any good arguments to reconstruct Proto-Semitic *p—or should we press *f and leave behind this relic from theories that believed in a South Semitic subgrouping?
- Probably influenced by Cushitic, but we can still take it as related to the other Semitic words. ↩︎
- In my opinion, the only word known so far with a superheavy syllable, exceptionally permitted because the word is monosyllabic. ↩︎
- I’m also really starting to doubt that Cushitic is one family. So maybe make that four (Berber, Beja, Agaw, East/South Cushitic). ↩︎
https://bnuyaminim.wordpress.com/2024/11/07/froto-semitic/
#Afroasiatic #Agaw #Akkadian #Ancie #Arabic #Aramaic #Beja #Berber #Chadic #Cushitic #Egyptian #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthAr #Omotic #ProtoSemitic
-
The Semitic languages show a regular correspondence of p in some languages and f in others. For instance, ‘mouth’ in Akkadian is p-ū; Biblical Hebrew pe; Biblical Aramaic pūm; Ge’ez ʾäf;1 and Classical Arabic fam-. (Modern South Arabian should have an f too, but has replaced this word.) This sound is uncontroversially reconstructed as Proto-Semitic *p, as in *p-ūm ‘mouth’.2 Traditionally, the change of *p to f was taken as a diagnostic feature of the South Semitic languages.
This figure and the next adapted from Huehnergard & Rubin (2011).[p] to [f], a plosive changing into a fricative, is an example of lenition. Lenition is a common type of sound change, so we tell our students, so it makes sense that *p is the older sound and it changed to f. So far, so good.
While preparing my first couple of classes for Comparative Semitics this year, I suddenly wasn’t so sure about this anymore. Two things bother me:
- The examples of p > f I know about are all part of a larger change affecting other plosives too, like Grimm’s Law (Proto-Indo-European *p, *t, *k, *kw > Proto-Germanic *f, *þ, *h, *hw and related changes) or Aramaic and Hebrew BGDKPT-spirantization. Is just p turning to f really so common? How about just f turning into p?
- Most scholars don’t accept the family tree above anymore. In the current model, the changes look more like this:
Now we need three or four separate instances of *p > *f—just as I’m starting to doubt how common that change is. Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), who argue for this second family tree, explain this as an areal change that spread through contact. But what kind of a contact scenario should we think of here? Did f spread from Ancient South Arabian (if those languages even had it) to all its neighbours? It’s not like we see enough other shared contact features to confidently posit a South Semitic language area or something.
Looking at Afroasiatic, things don’t get better:
- Berber has f, not p
- Cushitic has f, not p
- Egyptian has p and f, but we don’t know which one corresponds to Semitic *p (if either)
- Chadic: same as Egyptian, to my knowledge
- (I’m not sure Omotic is Afroasiatic, still reading up on this)
So if we posit Proto-Semitic *p, either we need two more independent cases of *p > *f (Berber, Cushitic),3 maybe more (Egyptian? Chadic?), or we reconstruct *f for Proto-Afroasiatic and say Proto-Semitic changed *f to *p. At which point, why not cut out the middleman and keep *f, then change it to *p in East and Northwest Semitic? Just two changes instead of the minimum of six you need otherwise.
So, are there any good arguments to reconstruct Proto-Semitic *p—or should we press *f and leave behind this relic from theories that believed in a South Semitic subgrouping?
- Probably influenced by Cushitic, but we can still take it as related to the other Semitic words. ↩︎
- In my opinion, the only word known so far with a superheavy syllable, exceptionally permitted because the word is monosyllabic. ↩︎
- I’m also really starting to doubt that Cushitic is one family. So maybe make that four (Berber, Beja, Agaw, East/South Cushitic). ↩︎
https://bnuyaminim.wordpress.com/2024/11/07/froto-semitic/
#Afroasiatic #Agaw #Akkadian #Ancie #Arabic #Aramaic #Beja #Berber #Chadic #Cushitic #Egyptian #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthAr #Omotic #ProtoSemitic
-
The Semitic languages show a regular correspondence of p in some languages and f in others. For instance, ‘mouth’ in Akkadian is p-ū; Biblical Hebrew pe; Biblical Aramaic pūm; Ge’ez ʾäf;1 and Classical Arabic fam-. (Modern South Arabian should have an f too, but has replaced this word.) This sound is uncontroversially reconstructed as Proto-Semitic *p, as in *p-ūm ‘mouth’.2 Traditionally, the change of *p to f was taken as a diagnostic feature of the South Semitic languages.
This figure and the next adapted from Huehnergard & Rubin (2011).[p] to [f], a plosive changing into a fricative, is an example of lenition. Lenition is a common type of sound change, so we tell our students, so it makes sense that *p is the older sound and it changed to f. So far, so good.
While preparing my first couple of classes for Comparative Semitics this year, I suddenly wasn’t so sure about this anymore. Two things bother me:
- The examples of p > f I know about are all part of a larger change affecting other plosives too, like Grimm’s Law (Proto-Indo-European *p, *t, *k, *kw > Proto-Germanic *f, *þ, *h, *hw and related changes) or Aramaic and Hebrew BGDKPT-spirantization. Is just p turning to f really so common? How about just f turning into p?
- Most scholars don’t accept the family tree above anymore. In the current model, the changes look more like this:
Now we need three or four separate instances of *p > *f—just as I’m starting to doubt how common that change is. Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), who argue for this second family tree, explain this as an areal change that spread through contact. But what kind of a contact scenario should we think of here? Did f spread from Ancient South Arabian (if those languages even had it) to all its neighbours? It’s not like we see enough other shared contact features to confidently posit a South Semitic language area or something.
Looking at Afroasiatic, things don’t get better:
- Berber has f, not p
- Cushitic has f, not p
- Egyptian has p and f, but we don’t know which one corresponds to Semitic *p (if either)
- Chadic: same as Egyptian, to my knowledge
- (I’m not sure Omotic is Afroasiatic, still reading up on this)
So if we posit Proto-Semitic *p, either we need two more independent cases of *p > *f (Berber, Cushitic),3 maybe more (Egyptian? Chadic?), or we reconstruct *f for Proto-Afroasiatic and say Proto-Semitic changed *f to *p. At which point, why not cut out the middleman and keep *f, then change it to *p in East and Northwest Semitic? Just two changes instead of the minimum of six you need otherwise.
So, are there any good arguments to reconstruct Proto-Semitic *p—or should we press *f and leave behind this relic from theories that believed in a South Semitic subgrouping?
- Probably influenced by Cushitic, but we can still take it as related to the other Semitic words. ↩︎
- In my opinion, the only word known so far with a superheavy syllable, exceptionally permitted because the word is monosyllabic. ↩︎
- I’m also really starting to doubt that Cushitic is one family. So maybe make that four (Berber, Beja, Agaw, East/South Cushitic). ↩︎
https://bnuyaminim.wordpress.com/2024/11/07/froto-semitic/
#Afroasiatic #Agaw #Akkadian #Ancie #Arabic #Aramaic #Beja #Berber #Chadic #Cushitic #Egyptian #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthAr #Omotic #ProtoSemitic
-
The Semitic languages show a regular correspondence of p in some languages and f in others. For instance, ‘mouth’ in Akkadian is p-ū; Biblical Hebrew pe; Biblical Aramaic pūm; Ge’ez ʾäf;1 and Classical Arabic fam-. (Modern South Arabian should have an f too, but has replaced this word.) This sound is uncontroversially reconstructed as Proto-Semitic *p, as in *p-ūm ‘mouth’.2 Traditionally, the change of *p to f was taken as a diagnostic feature of the South Semitic languages.
This figure and the next adapted from Huehnergard & Rubin (2011).[p] to [f], a plosive changing into a fricative, is an example of lenition. Lenition is a common type of sound change, so we tell our students, so it makes sense that *p is the older sound and it changed to f. So far, so good.
While preparing my first couple of classes for Comparative Semitics this year, I suddenly wasn’t so sure about this anymore. Two things bother me:
- The examples of p > f I know about are all part of a larger change affecting other plosives too, like Grimm’s Law (Proto-Indo-European *p, *t, *k, *kw > Proto-Germanic *f, *þ, *h, *hw and related changes) or Aramaic and Hebrew BGDKPT-spirantization. Is just p turning to f really so common? How about just f turning into p?
- Most scholars don’t accept the family tree above anymore. In the current model, the changes look more like this:
Now we need three or four separate instances of *p > *f—just as I’m starting to doubt how common that change is. Huehnergard & Rubin (2011), who argue for this second family tree, explain this as an areal change that spread through contact. But what kind of a contact scenario should we think of here? Did f spread from Ancient South Arabian (if those languages even had it) to all its neighbours? It’s not like we see enough other shared contact features to confidently posit a South Semitic language area or something.
Looking at Afroasiatic, things don’t get better:
- Berber has f, not p
- Cushitic has f, not p
- Egyptian has p and f, but we don’t know which one corresponds to Semitic *p (if either)
- Chadic: same as Egyptian, to my knowledge
- (I’m not sure Omotic is Afroasiatic, still reading up on this)
So if we posit Proto-Semitic *p, either we need two more independent cases of *p > *f (Berber, Cushitic),3 maybe more (Egyptian? Chadic?), or we reconstruct *f for Proto-Afroasiatic and say Proto-Semitic changed *f to *p. At which point, why not cut out the middleman and keep *f, then change it to *p in East and Northwest Semitic? Just two changes instead of the minimum of six you need otherwise.
So, are there any good arguments to reconstruct Proto-Semitic *p—or should we press *f and leave behind this relic from theories that believed in a South Semitic subgrouping?
- Probably influenced by Cushitic, but we can still take it as related to the other Semitic words. ↩︎
- In my opinion, the only word known so far with a superheavy syllable, exceptionally permitted because the word is monosyllabic. ↩︎
- I’m also really starting to doubt that Cushitic is one family. So maybe make that four (Berber, Beja, Agaw, East/South Cushitic). ↩︎
https://bnuyaminim.wordpress.com/2024/11/07/froto-semitic/
#Afroasiatic #Agaw #Akkadian #Ancie #Arabic #Aramaic #Beja #Berber #Chadic #Cushitic #Egyptian #GeEz #Hebrew #linguistics #ModernSouthAr #Omotic #ProtoSemitic
-
"safety manager", "safe space", "crisisteam", "zwaarwegende besluiten" die "democratisch tot stand komen".
Ze hebben het hier dus over een liedjesfestival.
#eurovisie #songfestival2025 #geez
bron: nos.nl
-
"safety manager", "safe space", "crisisteam", "zwaarwegende besluiten" die "democratisch tot stand komen".
Ze hebben het hier dus over een liedjesfestival.
#eurovisie #songfestival2025 #geez
bron: nos.nl
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bit of a posting spree this week, but I’m looking for feedback on something that’s been bothering me for several years now.
The terms Ethiosemitic, Ethio-Semitic and so forth have a big downside: they tend to (understandably!) trigger Eritreans, who make up a considerable share of the people speaking these languages. Hence, it would be nice if we could settle on an alternative. Afro-Semitic sounds kind of cool, but could be misinterpreted as including North African, Egyptian, and Sudanese Arabic, maybe even Punic. Something deriving from the Horn of Africa would be more precise, but I don’t see any elegant way to turn that into a single adjective. So my leading candidate is Abyssinian.
Pros:
- based on an endonym, Habesha
- used both in Antiquity and in the present
- unquestionably refers to speakers of the three biggest/most studied languages in this group: Ge’ez, Amharic, Tigrinya
- covers languages from both Ethiopia and Eritrea and from both main linguistic groups (South and North/non-South if North isn’t a valid category by itself)
- already an existing English word
- some history of linguistic usage
- not literally the same word as Habesha so there’s some liberty to use it differently
Cons:
- sounds kind of old-fashioned and colonial to me (maybe unrightfully so)
- often limited to predominantly Christian groups (Amharic and Tigrinya speakers), may exclude predominantly Muslim groups (Tigre, Harari speakers); isolated (mostly Christian) Gurage speakers seem like an edge case from what I can find online
- may be a loaded term given recent ethnic tensions in Ethiopia
So, what do you think? Is it worth going back to an outdated term in an attempt to make some people feel included and stop them from getting mad, with the risk of excluding another group of people and making them mad?1 I would especially love to hear from anyone with a relevant ethnic background—Habesha, Ethiosemitic speakers, what have you—but all input is very welcome.
Cheers.- But note that the biggest relevant non-Habesha group, Tigre speakers, are also excluded by Ethiosemitic. ↩︎
https://bnuyaminim.wordpress.com/2024/08/08/ethiosemitic-or-abyssinian/
