KingsOfKings
โ๏ธ GRANDMASTERS โ๏ธ
Does anyone know anything about the Khoisan Bushmen religions?
please no wiki articles
please no wiki articles
Khoisan
- Thread starter KingsOfKings
- Start date
A issue presents itself with the language Between Meinhof & Greenberg.
In the wake of having reprimanded the situation of a portion of his forerunners as Meinhof - still him - on having a place with the Hamitic group of the Hottentot dialect, Greenberg draws out his obsession weapon: the typological correlation duplicates from a befuddled similar vocabulary. He falls into his own particular Afro-Asian trap reminding parallel parallels between the hottentot morphology and what should be the general morphology of the hamito-semitic: the postfix - si of the causative, the additions - b of the manly (this dialect knows the linguistic sex) and - s of the ladylike which definitely make one think about the Somali, the Bedauye (Cushytic) and the all inclusive Afro-Asiatic. This is the foolish verification that the Afro-Asian "family" did not depend on anything since Greenberg himself perceives that having a similar sexual orientation fastens does not demonstrate a hereditary connection, while He expressed above: "In the event that we take the case of Meinhof's main standard, syntactic sex, we see that its essence in two dialects proves practically nothing. To state, in any case, that these two dialects possess a female developmental impact, and with it, the cogency of the confirmation. >> (on the same page, 42). It is very astounding that in condemning the extension of Hottentot to Hamitic, Greenberg is just killing his own Afro-Asiatic "family" stance. In reality, when it tackles page 70 to the individuals who feel that the pronouns bushman he "third individual solitary", I "first individual plural" and u "second individual plural" relate to the English pronouns he << il >>, we << us >> and you >> you >> separately, he just brings up his own similarities between the semitic, egyptian, berberian, and so forth pronouns. Of two things, one: it is possible that he is great at borrowings from English, and for this situation these linguistic components can pass effortlessly starting with one dialect then onto the next as has really been watched; or it is unadulterated fortuitous events, and for this situation the mass correlation has no logical legitimization and Greenberg's probabilistic thinking is deceptive.
Truth be told, Greenberg's legitimization for this family is, in the last investigation, the nearness of clicks, which isn't confirmation of hereditary parentage as everybody knows. Since if the hottentot was talked in the North-East of Africa and did not have these celebrated snaps, it is decisively that he would have grouped it among the dialects "couchitiques" all the more would have had with them a couple of words in like manner. Then again, if the Xhosa - Southern Bantu dialect, which has clicks in its phonological framework - did not have such a normal Bantu morphology, it would have all of a sudden ended up in the Khoi-san family. Normally, it is on these same clicks that Greenberg depends to broaden the family "khoi-san" to two different dialects beucoup facilitate north, sandawe and hatsa.
At last, understanding that he didn't know how to give a persuading clarification regarding the morphological correspondences found between the Hottentot and the Afro-Asiatic, he imagines, as on account of Niger-Congo, a removed parent between the "khoi-san >> and Afro-Asiatic: << There are just two valid clarifications of these likenesses. They can be considered as joinings, or, if they can be remade for the parent (s) of the dialect (s). an entirety. >> (in the same place, page 72)
In the wake of having reprimanded the situation of a portion of his forerunners as Meinhof - still him - on having a place with the Hamitic group of the Hottentot dialect, Greenberg draws out his obsession weapon: the typological correlation duplicates from a befuddled similar vocabulary. He falls into his own particular Afro-Asian trap reminding parallel parallels between the hottentot morphology and what should be the general morphology of the hamito-semitic: the postfix - si of the causative, the additions - b of the manly (this dialect knows the linguistic sex) and - s of the ladylike which definitely make one think about the Somali, the Bedauye (Cushytic) and the all inclusive Afro-Asiatic. This is the foolish verification that the Afro-Asian "family" did not depend on anything since Greenberg himself perceives that having a similar sexual orientation fastens does not demonstrate a hereditary connection, while He expressed above: "In the event that we take the case of Meinhof's main standard, syntactic sex, we see that its essence in two dialects proves practically nothing. To state, in any case, that these two dialects possess a female developmental impact, and with it, the cogency of the confirmation. >> (on the same page, 42). It is very astounding that in condemning the extension of Hottentot to Hamitic, Greenberg is just killing his own Afro-Asiatic "family" stance. In reality, when it tackles page 70 to the individuals who feel that the pronouns bushman he "third individual solitary", I "first individual plural" and u "second individual plural" relate to the English pronouns he << il >>, we << us >> and you >> you >> separately, he just brings up his own similarities between the semitic, egyptian, berberian, and so forth pronouns. Of two things, one: it is possible that he is great at borrowings from English, and for this situation these linguistic components can pass effortlessly starting with one dialect then onto the next as has really been watched; or it is unadulterated fortuitous events, and for this situation the mass correlation has no logical legitimization and Greenberg's probabilistic thinking is deceptive.
Truth be told, Greenberg's legitimization for this family is, in the last investigation, the nearness of clicks, which isn't confirmation of hereditary parentage as everybody knows. Since if the hottentot was talked in the North-East of Africa and did not have these celebrated snaps, it is decisively that he would have grouped it among the dialects "couchitiques" all the more would have had with them a couple of words in like manner. Then again, if the Xhosa - Southern Bantu dialect, which has clicks in its phonological framework - did not have such a normal Bantu morphology, it would have all of a sudden ended up in the Khoi-san family. Normally, it is on these same clicks that Greenberg depends to broaden the family "khoi-san" to two different dialects beucoup facilitate north, sandawe and hatsa.
At last, understanding that he didn't know how to give a persuading clarification regarding the morphological correspondences found between the Hottentot and the Afro-Asiatic, he imagines, as on account of Niger-Congo, a removed parent between the "khoi-san >> and Afro-Asiatic: << There are just two valid clarifications of these likenesses. They can be considered as joinings, or, if they can be remade for the parent (s) of the dialect (s). an entirety. >> (in the same place, page 72)