Afroasiatic | Ethnic group of Africa

Afroasiatic (Afro-Asiatic)

Afroasiatic (Afro-Asiatic), also known as Afrasian or Hamito-Semitic, Semito-Hamitic, or Erythraean is a large language family of about 300 languages that are spoken predominantly in the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and parts of the Sahel. except for Semitic, which is also spoken in the Middle-East and Malta, all branches of the Afroаsiatic family are spoken exclusively on the African continent.

Afroasiatic languages have over 500 million native speakers, which is the fourth largest number of native speakers of any language family (after Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan and Niger–Congo). The phylum has six branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Semitic, and Omotic, however the inclusion of Omotic remains controversial, and several linguists see it as an independent language family, which stood in long-term contact with Afroasiatic languages. By far the most widely spoken Afroasiatic language or dialect continuum is Arabic. A de facto group of distinct language varieties within the Semitic branch, the languages that evolved from Proto-Arabic have around 313 million native speakers, concentrated primarily in the Middle East and North Africa.

In addition to languages spoken today, Afroasiatic includes several important ancient languages, such as Ancient Egyptian, which forms a distinct branch of the family, and within the Semitic family, Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew and Old Aramaic. There is no consensus among historical linguists concerning the original homeland of the Afroasiatic family, or the period when the parent language (i.e. Proto-Afroasiatic) was spoken. Proposed locations include the Horn of Africa, North Africa, the Eastern Sahara and the Levant.

Etymology

In the early 19th century, linguists grouped the Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian languages within a “Hamitic” phylum, in acknowledgement of these languages’ genetic relation with each other and with those in the Semitic phylum. The terms “Hamitic” and “Semitic” were etymologically derived from the Book of Genesis, which describes various Biblical tribes descended from Ham and Shem, two sons of Noah. By the 1860s, the main constituent elements within the broader Afroasiatic family had been worked out.

Friedrich Müller introduced the name “Hamito-Semitic” for the entire language family in his Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft (1876). Maurice Delafosse (1914) later coined the term “Afroasiatic” (often now spelled “Afro-Asiatic”). However, it did not come into general use until Joseph Greenberg (1950) formally proposed its adoption. In doing so, Greenberg sought to emphasize the fact that ‘Hamitic’ was not a valid group and that language cladistics did not reflect race.

Individual scholars have also called the family “Erythraean” (Tucker 1966) and “Lisramic” (Hodge 1972). Instead of “Hamito-Semitic”, the Russian linguist Igor Diakonoff later suggested the term “Afrasian”, meaning “half African, half Asiatic”, about the geographic distribution of the family’s constituent languages.

The term “Hamito-Semitic” remains in use in the academic traditions of some European countries, as well as in the official census of the government of India.

Distribution and branches

Scholars generally treat the Afroasiatic language family as including the following five branches, whereas Omotic is disputed:

• Berber
• Chadic
• Cushitic
• Egyptian
• Semitic

Although there is general agreement on these six families, linguists who study Afroasiatic raise some points of disagreement, in particular:

• The Omotic language branch is the most controversial member of Afroasiatic because the grammatical formations to which most linguists have given the greatest weight in classifying languages in the family “are either absent or distinctly wobbly” (Hayward 1995). Greenberg (1963) and others considered it a subgroup of Cushitic, whereas others have raised doubts about its being part of Afroasiatic at all (e.g. Theil 2006).
• The Afroasiatic identity of Ongota is also broadly questioned, as is its position within Afroasiatic among those who accept it, due to the “mixed” appearance of the language and a paucity of research and data. Harold Fleming (2006) proposes that Ongota constitutes a separate branch of Afroasiatic. Bonny Sands (2009) finds the proposal by Savà and Tosco (2003) the most convincing: namely that Ongota is an East Cushitic language with a Nilo-Saharan substratum. In other words, it would appear that the Ongota people once spoke a Nilo-Saharan language but then shifted to speaking a Cushitic language but retained some characteristics of their earlier Nilo-Saharan language.
• Beja, sometimes listed as a separate branch of Afroasiatic, is more often included in the Cushitic branch, which has a substantial degree of internal diversity.
• There is no consensus on the interrelationships of the five non-Omotic branches of Afroasiatic (see § Subgrouping below). This situation is not unusual, even among long-established language families: scholars also frequently disagree on the internal classification of the Indo-European languages, for instance.
• The extinct Meroitic language has been proposed (Bruce Trigger, 1964, 1977) as an unclassified Afroasiatic language, because it shares the phonotactics characteristic of the family, but there is not enough evidence to secure a classification (Fritz Hintze, 1974)
• The classification of Kujargé within Afroasiatic is not agreed upon. Blench (2008) notes that much of the basic vocabulary looks Cushitic, and speculates that Kujargé could even be a conservative language transitional between Chadic and Cushitic.

Classification history

In the 9th century, the Hebrew grammarian Judah ibn Quraysh of Tiaret in Algeria was the first to link two branches of Afroasiatic together; he perceived a relationship between Berber and Semitic. He knew of Semitic through his study of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. In the 19th century, Europeans also began suggesting such relationships. In 1844, Theodor Benfey suggested a language family consisting of Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic (calling the latter “Ethiopic”). In the same year, T.N. Newman suggested a relationship between Semitic and Hausa, but this would long remain a topic of dispute and uncertainty.

Friedrich Müller named the traditional Hamito-Semitic family in 1876 in his Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft (“Outline of Linguistics”), and defined it as consisting of a Semitic group plus a “Hamitic” group containing Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic; he excluded the Chadic group. It was the Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius (1810–1884) who restricted Hamitic to the non-Semitic languages in Africa, which are characterized by a grammatical gender system. This “Hamitic language group” was proposed to unite various, mainly North-African, languages, including the Ancient Egyptian language, the Berber languages, the Cushitic languages, the Beja language, and the Chadic languages. Unlike Müller, Lepsius considered that Hausa and Nama were part of the Hamitic group. These classifications relied in part on non-linguistic anthropological and racial arguments. Both authors used the skin-color, mode of subsistence, and other characteristics of native speakers as part of their arguments that particular languages should be grouped.

Distribution of the Afroasiatic/Hamito-Semitic languages in Africa

In 1912, Carl Meinhof published Die Sprachen der Hamiten (“The Languages of the Hamites”), in which he expanded Lepsius’s model, adding the Fula, Maasai, Bari, Nandi, Sandawe and Hadza languages to the Hamitic group. Meinhof’s model was widely supported in the 1940s. Meinhof’s system of classification of the Hamitic languages was based on a belief that “speakers of Hamitic became largely coterminous with cattle herding peoples with essentially Caucasian origins, intrinsically different from and superior to the ‘Negroes of Africa’.” However, in the case of the so-called Nilo-Hamitic languages (a concept he introduced), it was based on the typological feature of gender and a “fallacious theory of language mixture.” Meinhof did this although earlier work by scholars such as Lepsius and Johnston had substantiated that the languages which he would later dub “Nilo-Hamitic ” were Nilotic languages, with numerous similarities in vocabulary to other Nilotic languages.

Leo Reinisch (1909) had already proposed linking Cushitic and Chadic while urging their more distant affinity with Egyptian and Semitic. However, his suggestion found little acceptance. Marcel Cohen (1924) rejected the idea of a distinct “Hamitic” subgroup and included Hausa (a Chadic language) in his comparative Hamito-Semitic vocabulary. Finally, Joseph Greenberg’s 1950 work led to the widespread rejection of “Hamitic” as a language category by linguists. Greenberg refuted Meinhof’s linguistic theories and rejected the use of racial and social evidence. In dismissing the notion of a separate “Nilo-Hamitic” language category, in particular, Greenberg was “returning to a view widely held a half-century earlier.” He consequently rejoined Meinhof’s so-called Nilo-Hamitic languages with their appropriate Nilotic siblings. He also added (and sub-classified) the Chadic languages, and proposed the new name Afroasiatic for the family. Almost all scholars have accepted this classification as the new and continued consensus.

Greenberg’s model was fully developed in his book The Languages of Africa (1963), in which he reassigned most of Meinhof’s additions to Hamitic to other language families, notably Nilo-Saharan. Following Isaac Schapera and rejecting Meinhof, he classified the Khoekhoe language as a member of the Khoisan languages, a grouping that has since proven inaccurate and excessively motivated on the presence of click sounds. To Khoisan he also added the Tanzanian Hadza and Sandawe, though this view has been discredited as linguists working on these languages consider them to be linguistic isolates. Despite this, Greenberg’s classification remains a starting point for modern work of many languages spoken in Africa, and the Hamitic category (and its extension to Nilo-Hamitic) has no part in this.

Since the three traditional branches of the Hamitic languages (Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian) have not been shown to form an exclusive (monophyletic) phylogenetic unit of their own, separate from other Afroasiatic languages, linguists no longer use the term in this sense. Each of these branches is instead now regarded as an independent subgroup of the larger Afroasiatic family.

In 1969, Harold Fleming proposed that what had previously been known as Western Cushitic is an independent branch of Afroasiatic, suggesting for it the new name Omotic. This proposal and name have met with widespread acceptance.

Based on typological differences with the other Cushitic languages, Robert Hetzron proposed that Beja had to be removed from Cushitic, thus forming an independent branch of Afroasiatic. Most scholars, however, reject this proposal, and continue to group Beja as the sole member of a Northern branch within Cushitic.

Glottolog does not accept that the inclusion or even unity of Omotic has been established, nor that of Ongota or the unclassified Kujarge. It therefore splits off the following groups as small families: South Omotic, Mao, Dizoid, Gonga–Gimojan (North Omotic apart from the preceding), Ongota, Kujarge.

Subgrouping

Little agreement exists on the subgrouping of the five or six branches of Afroasiatic: Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, and Omotic. However, Christopher Ehret (1979), Harold Fleming (1981), and Joseph Greenberg (1981) all agree that the Omotic branch split from the rest first.

Otherwise:

• Paul Newman (1980) groups Berber with Chadic and Egyptian with Semitic, while questioning the inclusion of Omotic in Afroasiatic. Rolf Theil (2006) concurs with the exclusion of Omotic but does not otherwise address the structure of the family.
• Harold Fleming (1981) divides non-Omotic Afroasiatic, or “Erythraean”, into three groups, Cushitic, Semitic, and Chadic-Berber-Egyptian. He later added Semitic and Beja to Chadic-Berber-Egyptian and tentatively proposed Ongota as a new third branch of Erythraean. He thus divided Afroasiatic into two major branches, Omotic and Erythraean, with Erythraean consisting of three sub-branches, Cushitic, Chadic-Berber-Egyptian-Semitic-Beja, and Ongota.
• Like Harold Fleming, Christopher Ehret (1995: 490) divides Afroasiatic into two branches, Omotic and Erythrean. He divides Omotic into two branches, North Omotic and South Omotic. He divides Erythrean into Cushitic, comprising Beja, Agaw, and East-South Cushitic, and North Erythrean, comprising Chadic and “Boreafrasian.” According to his classification, Boreafrasian consists of Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic.
• Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova (1995) group Berber with Semitic and Chadic with Egyptian. They split up Cushitic into five or more independent branches of Afroasiatic, viewing Cushitic as a Sprachbund rather than a language family.
• Igor M. Diakonoff (1996) subdivides Afroasiatic in two, grouping Berber, Cushitic, and Semitic together as East-West Afrasian (ESA), and Chadic with Egyptian as North-South Afrasian (NSA). He excludes Omotic from Afroasiatic.
• Lionel Bender (1997) groups Berber, Cushitic, and Semitic together as “Macro-Cushitic”. He regards Chadic and Omotic as the branches of Afroasiatic most remote from the others.
• Alexander Militarev (2000), based on lexicostatistics, groups Berber with Chadic and both more distantly with Semitic, as against Cushitic and Omotic. He places Ongota in South Omotic.

Also, See other Indigenous people.

African Great Lakes

Hadza people, Sandawe people, Twa people, Bangweulu Batwa, Great Lakes Twa, Kafwe Twa, Lukanga Twa, Nilo-Saharan, Kalenjin people, Maasai people, Samburu people, Bantu languages, Abagusii People, Kikuyu people, Luhya people, Bukusu, Afroasiatic, Iraqw people, Rendille people.

—————————————————————–