Talk:Afroasiatic languages

Template:Vital article

New book coming out

The other day I stumbled across this book: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egyptian-Afroasiatic-Rethinking-Languages/dp/1646022122/ref=sr_1_1?crid=VUAUS6WL4JQ8&keywords=ancient+languages+of+the+near+east&qid=1671287206&sprefix=ancient+languages+of+the+near+east%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1

Once it's out (2023), it seems like the chapters will be a lot of use for this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the publisher link:[1]. The list of authors is impressive. –Austronesier (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Still haven't been able to get my hands on the book, but the table of contents shows that it will be very useful for this article.

1. Comparative Afroasiatic linguistics and the place of ancient Egyptian within the phylum / M. Victoria Almansa-Villatoro and Silvia Štubňová Nigrelli
2. Data limitations and supplementary methods in placing Egyptian / Chelsea Sanker
3. Afroasiatic lexical comparison : an Egyptologist's point of view / Jean Winand
4. Egyptian morphology in Afroasiatic perspective / Andréas Stauder
5. Proto-Semitic and Egyptian / John Huehnergard
6. Some common features of Akkadian and Egyptian revisited / Elsa Oréal
7. Lexical, phonological, and morphological evidence / Aren Wilson-Wright
8. Reconstructing Proto-Semitic nominal and verbal systems in the context of Afroasiatic languages / Vit Bubenik
9. Ancient Egyptian's place in the Afroasiatic language family / Christopher Ehret, Deven N. Vyas, Shiferaw Assefa, J. Lafayette Gaston, Tiffany Gleason, and Andrew Kitchen
10. Testing the hypothesis -- theoretical and methodological issues : the relationship of Egyptian and Afroasiatic / Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Michael Avina
11. Restructured or archaic? : the hunt for shared morphological innovation involving Egyptian / Lameen Souag
12. In Pascal's and Boole's footsteps : measuring the mathematical probability of genetic kinship between language families / Leo Depuydt.

If we're lucky we'll get some statements of academic consensus. One problem with a field like this is that individual authors too often contradict each other and thus make a presentation here difficult.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Linguistic terminology

Referring to Afroasiatic as hypothetical is preferred to give readers an accurate conceptualization of its status in relation to other attested language families.

Afro Asiatic is a working hypothesis because its predialectical ancestor Proto Afrasian has not been accurately reconstructed. In this sense Afro Asiatic is at the same level as Niger Congo and Nilo Saharan in historical linguistics.

It is not at the same level as Indo European. This is why the article should say 'hypothetical language family' or something referencing its current nature as a working hypothesis. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between the status of a language family and the status of its protolanguage. The existence of a language family can be quite uncontroversial based on linguistic evidence, such as common vocabulary and shared morphology. At the same time, the shape of the protolanguage may be still under discussion. In this sense the protolanguage is hypothetical, because we don't know exactly how it looked like; we just assume that it must have existed at some stage. But the language family coming from that protolanguage is not hypothetical at all, but manifest through a lot of evidence. This is the case with Afro-Asiatic and other language families you mention. No linguist seriously questions Afro-Asiatic as a unit, although some subfamilies and groups of languages are under discussion. Therefore applying the qualifier "hypothetic" would call up wrong assumptions with non-expert readers, to the effect that the family is still very much in doubt. It isn't. BTW, Proto-Indoeuropean is also still not entirely settled, its shape not agreed upon by all historical linguists. LandLing 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The article should also list the linguists who have challenged the variety of Afrasian reconstructions. This will give viewers a more balanced scientific understanding of this language grouping. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion that no linguist questions the validity of Afro Asiatic as an attested language family is inaccurate. There is a long tradition of scholars who have suggested that Afroasiatic is an allogenetic family and a "sprachbund" ie an area of linguistic convergence and areal diffusion as opposed to languages that are genetically related. One prominent scholar who has affirmed this is G. W. Tsereteli in his analysis of ancient Egyptian.

Dr. Steven Peter has presented evidence that all language families constructed via multi lateral comparative analysis are invalid due to their inability to detect onomatopeic vocabulary, nursery language and chancr correspondences. He is following in the tradition of linguist Isvan Fodor who has stated that all of the synchronic language classifications of Africa conducted by Greenberg will eventually be replaced.

Robert Ratcliffe is an example of a scholar who believes that Afroasiatic will eventually be confirmed while severely criticizing most conventional reconstructions.

Aren Wilson Wright stated that it is impossible to prove the genetic relationship between Semitic and Egyptian using the conventional methodology.

In conventional histotical linguistics the time depth of the comparative method is 6,000 to 10,000 years. Most Afroasiatic linguists believe that more than 20,000 years is needed to completely reconstruct Proto AA. This would be akin to a macrophylum as opposed to a language family since the number of linguists who believe in the accuracy of long range comparison is small and essentially limited to the Moscow school.

Without mentioning all of these facts, readers of the article have no way of knowing the limitations within Afroasiatic studies. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The acceptance of the three Greenbergian constructs Afroasiatic, Niger–Congo (or Niger–Kordofanian) and Nilo-Saharan differs greatly, which is also due to the fact that the former two were not just the product of multilateral comparative analysis, but largely had been developed before Greenberg (albeit not in the full scope as proposed by Greenberg). So it's a bit misleadsing to put these three on par.

Also, the characterization of Afroasiatic as a long-range comparative concept is not how major historical linguists specialized on African languages (Dimmendaal, Güldemann etc.) see it. Yes, some Nostraticists are also active in the reconstruction of Afroasiatic, but not all historical linguists involved in Afroasiatic studies are long rangers. The time depth that is assumed for Proto-Afroasiatic might be greater than for many other established language families, but is not generally considered to be beyond the reach of the comparative method.

In any case, it would be interesting to see the full citations for the opinions that you mention above, so we can assess them for potential inclusion here with due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(PS:) Oh, and just curious, are you worried about the status of Afrasiatic in toto (also about the link e.g. between Semitic, Berber and Cushitic), or more specifically about the fact that Ancient Egyptian could belong to a language familiy that straddles two continents, a notion that has been an ideological σκάνδαλον for certain circles for almost a century? –Austronesier (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree we should see the citations - but if this were the case, it would be mentioned in any work discussing AA. Let's see what some of them say:

• Frayzingier/Shay The Afroasiatic Languages 2012 Cambridge UP, p. 3: The larger etymological studies have been criticized for the choice of items taken for comparison and often for the validity of postulated cognates. The cumulative effect of these studies, that of reconfirming the genetic unity of the phylum, is not in doubt. Also, regarding Nostratic (p. 4): The Nostratic hypothesis is highly controversial and has very few supporters among specialists in Afroasiatic languages.
• Takacs, Etymological Volume of Ancient Egyptian, vol. 1, Brill 1999, p. 35:the classification of Egyptian within Afroasiatic may be regarded as solid
• Wilson, A Concatenative Analysis of Diachronic Afro-Asiatic Morphology, Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2020, p. 1: Afro-Asiatic is one of the major language families spoken on the planet. Coming in behind the goliaths of Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan, as well as its African neighbor Niger-Congo, Afro-Asiatic is the fourth-most widely spoken family, whose approximately 499 million speakers constitute roughly 6.4% of the world’s population.
• Bender, A Comparative Morphology of the Omotic Languages, Lincom Europa 2000, p. 1As to Omotic being Afrasian, doubts have been expressed, sometimes about one branch or another, sometimes about the entirety. This refers simply to whether Omotic (or North or South Omotic) is AA, not the existence of AA itself, which is taken as proven.

None of these works suggest that AA is viewed as only a "hypothetical" language group. That some such scholars exist I believe, but they are a distinct minority, or else they would be mentioned. I'm certain such statements would be confirmed if we looked at other works on the family.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding the "splitter" Güldemann (in The Languages and Linguistics of Africa, De Gruyter Mouton, 2018, p. 347): A set of diagnostic morphological traits has been established to define a concrete Afroasiatic proto-language that allows one to evaluate whether modern languages and lineages can be derived from it. On this basis one can identify the following robust member lineages: Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, and Chadic. With the caveat that a more extensive and systematic analysis is still outstanding, the two Omotic lineages Ta-Ne and Maji can be added to this list. –Austronesier (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Although Egyptologists and Semitists alike agree that Egyptian and Semitic are genetically related based on morphological evidence, they have yet to establish systematic sound correspondences between the two language families. The lack of sound correspondences, in turn, raises doubts about the relationship between Egyptian and Semitic and necessitates a renewed analysis of their shared features. In this talk, I will review the morphological, lexical, and phonological evidence for a genetic relationship between Semitic and Egyptian by comparing Proto-Semitic and internally reconstructed Egyptian forms, a standard historical linguistic procedure that has helped established numerous language families, ranging from Indo-European to Uto-Aztecan. Based on this comparison, I argue that there is insufficient evidence to support a genetic relationship between Egyptian and Semitic. This is not to say that the two language families are not genetically related, only that it is impossible to detect a genetic relationship between them using current methodology.

-Aren Wilson Wright Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

How well-established is the classification of African language families like Af- roasiatic or Niger-Congo in fact? And, how solid is our current knowledge about the subclassification of these families? As the following brief survey should make clear, it is extremely difficult to arrive at convincing subgroupings for deeper time levels on the basis of the comparative method, and there is also controversy about the genetic affiliation of specific language groups. Several lower-level units on the other hand have come to be accepted as valid genetic groupings.

-G Dimmendaal Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

For my own part I am convinced the proposal of an Afroasiatic family remains the most plausible ex- planation for the detailed similarities found in the languages of the (proposed) family in morphology, including detailed paradigmatic resemblances and shared anomalies in both the verb and pronouns (Castellino 1962, Diakonof 1965) and the noun (Greenberg 1955, Ratclife 1992), as well as many similarities in basic vocabulary. But whether the Proto-Afroasiatic lexicon and phonology can ever be reconstructed with the same conidence as for Proto-Indo-European remains entirely in doubt. here may simply not be enough remaining shared lexicon to allow for reconstruction of the full Proto-Afroasiatic phoneme inventory.

-Robert Ratcliffe Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

“In view of the present state of research, a comparative grammar of the Hamito-Semitic languages goes beyond what is scientifically attainable, even in the sense of an algebraic reconstruction. Our comparisons will therefore have to renounce the traditional “historical” model of diachronic linguistics, and instead will extend the “typological” approach. Here the overlappings need not necessarily go back to a posited common Afro-Asiatic, but will rather represent Afro-Asiatic as a realized construct. Thus Afroasiatic will never be a “reconstructible” language”, but only the “reconstructed sum” of historically attested points of [linguistic] juncture independent of their origin, and carried out for the sake of a particular investigation; this sum may be interpreted in terms of “genetic relationship”, “Sprachbund”, “areal linguistics”, or “allogenetic relationship”. […] The results of “allogenetic contacts” between the Afro-Asiatic languages will also have to be considered as [belonging to the] structure of “Afro Asiatic”; just as much as are the results of genetic relationship: Afro-Asiatic can only be considered an abstract construct of linguistic features and not a unified system of linguistic realities.” -Antonio Loprieno Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide where these people said this and who they are- as I said, scholars who doubt the proposal undoubtedly exist, but as they are not mentioned in most materials on the language family, they are obviously a small minority. Furthermore, one of your cited scholars actually supports the existence of AA.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, two: Ratcliffe and Dimmendaal. They mention the undebiable problems in reconstructing the deeper levels of the family, without ever doubting the resulting family as a unit.

Wright and Loprieno appear to be somewhat stronger in their hesitance, so it may indeed be helpful to know where they come from, and particularly, when they have written their pieces. And it would be good to know how their position was received by others in the field. LandLing 13:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have tracked the statement by Loprieno to here, where it is quoted and said to come from 1986. Given that it's that old, and quoted in a book from 1998 by Lutz Edzard that apparently agrees with the theory, I think it's safe to say that Lutz and Loprieno's objections have been without any major impact in the field.

Wilson-Wright is apparently quoted from here, a summary of a lecture. Wilson-Wright is a Semitic linguist (a postdoc according to Academia.edu). I can't find any evidence that his skepticism has been taken up elsewhere.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As for the talk by Wilson-Wright, we shouldn't cite an abstract when the presentation is not available, nor cited in secondary sources. Wilson-Wright is among the contributors of the upcoming volume Ancient Egyptian and Afroasiatic: Rethinking the Origins that we have talked about before (see a few sections above), so soon we will have something citeable. Note however that Wilson-Wright only discusses the binary relation between Egyptian and Semitic. To cite him as evidence that Afroasiatic in its entirety is contested is a hyperbole. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wilson Wright stated in that abstract that it is impossible to prove a genetic relationship between Egyptian and Semitic using the conventional historical linguistic methodology.

In science just because you have a discussion about a plausible linguistic classification doesn't mean that it has been affirmed beyond all reasonable doubt.

If Afroasiatic had been affirmed beyond all reasonable doubt we would be able to prove recurrent non accidental sound correspondences between thousands of vocabulary words in Egyptian and Semitic. To this day no linguist has ever been able to prove this with succinct morphological and phonological analysis.

Calling Afroasiatic a hypothetical language family is not denigrating its status. It is simply stating a fact with the comparative data that we have available. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I find the antiquity fallacy used in objection to Loprieno's affirmation that Afroasiatic represents an area of linguistic diffusion interesting.

Just because a linguist made some analysis in the past doesn't mean that the analysis done today is automatically better. Some may assume that this is the case because of more data, but that still doesn't prove Loprieno Tsereteli et al's analysis of Afroasiatic as a sprachbund false.

What you would have to do to prove them wrong is show sound laws among thousands of basic vocabulary words of the major nodes including but not limited to Egyptian and Semitic.

Saying that something is old and therefore wrong is fallacious and very bad reasoning. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

While it may be the case that the majority of linguists in the Western academy believe in the plausibility of Afroasiatic, it is wholly in accurate to say that the majority of them believe that every major internal and external reconstruction issue within Afroasiatic studies has been resolved.

Issues like the time depth needed and accuracy of long range comparison are not something to ignore. The incompatible correspondence sets that exist among the major hypothetical reconstructions of Proto Afro Asiatic are also a very big deal.

Up until this point I see no reason to leave out the major limitations of Afro Asiatic linguistics from this article. Not being balanced in this regard is scholastic malpractice. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

My final suggestion would be to either list Afro Asiatic as a hypothetical language family or continue to list it as a language family and then provide a section with the many linguists who have raised issues about its classification.

Many of these linguists believe that Afroasiatic will eventually be established but they affirm at the same time that this hasn't happened yet(Ratcliffe &, Dimmendaal etc.); hence the necessary adjective 'hypothetical'. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As none of the sources you provided call Afroasiatic a hypothetical language family, using that adjective in a prominent place (say, in the info-box or in the lead) would be original research, even if we could agree on its appropriateness, which we don't. You want to apply it to the language family because its protolanguage remains hypothetical in a technical sense, but equating one with the other is not current best practice in comparative linguistics. There is not sufficient data to fully reconstruct the proto-Afroasiatic language, and to finally sort out the higher-level branches of the phylum, but there is way too much evidence to allow for any reasonable doubt regarding the claim that Egyptian, Semitic, Cushitic, Chadic and Berber belong to the same language family. And this is entirely reflected in the literature that enjoys any kind of reception so far.

Balance is already attained in the article by stating in much detail all the many twists and turns in the classification history, based on all the problems that ensued - Ermenrich's struggles with the shared vocabulary section, as testified in the discussion he started below, is a good example of that. Once something quotable comes out of the work of Wilson-Wright, then of course we need to include it with proper weight. LandLing 08:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If there are major issues with reconstruction and the establishment of genetic unity among members of a language family that reach the extent of professional linguists using terms like "sprachbund" and "allogenetic" logic dictates that a failure to address these critiques would not make Afroasiatic attested beyond reasonable doubt.

If a language family that does not contain the full set of reconstructed sound correspondences at the phonological and morphological level among the entire corpus of its intermediate nodes is not considered a working hypothesis, it appears that some of the editors of this particular article want to change the defining parameters of historical comparative linguistics.

Professionals in the field and scientists in general who come across this page and read the discussion here certainly would not approve. Something that has not been confirmed yet is by definition hypothetical. Even if we have reason to believe that it will be confirmed, that doesn't change its hypothetical status. Scholar editor 477 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well unless we can cite these scholars and experts who might theoretically come here and not approve and show they are a majority in the field (which we have already shown they are not), we don’t need to worry about them.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I can only see one editor trying to redefine the defining parameters of historical comparative linguistics and scholarly consensus about the validity of the Afroasiatic family. (See the history of Bamileke people and its talk page to see what's actually behind it. It's all about Egyptian, not Afroasiatic.) –Austronesier (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I finally got my hands on the book containing Aren M. Wilson-Wright's chapter. While he does indeed argue that AA is unproven, no one else in the volume does (though another contributor does sort of cavalierly dismiss Chadic being part of the family, without citing any reasons. At the same time he mathematically proves the relationship of Egyptian and Semitic). Unfortunately, no one reacts to Wilson-Wright arguments. It's too soon to tell if his arguments will have any impact, in my opinion, so we should not cite him on this (at least not in this article). I'll also note that Wilson-Wright is currently listed as an independent scholar in the contributor's section. While the academic job market (particularly in a niche like Egyptian) is pretty unforgiving and I wouldn't want to make any conclusions about his work based on his lack of a position, in practice this does mean that his arguments are likely to be taken less seriously by other scholars.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Dating and Urheimat

I've moved on (or am also working on) rewriting the section on the dating of Afroasiatic and the Urheimat. See my sandbox for the current (still rough) draft. Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is a sub-article for the urheimat.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed - one of my goals is to make the section(s) here shorter and more coherent. It looks to me like that other article needs some work in some areas, but I'm not ready to throw myself into that at the moment.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The other article is in a not so good, but also not so bad shape. Only the "Genetics"-section is a bit of a trainwreck full of WP:SYNTH (as usual). We had a discussion in Talk:Afroasiatic_homeland#"Genetics_has_no_place_in_linguistic_discussion"_–_part_2 and largely agreed that something must be done, but with little practical results (as usual too LOL). Apart from the opening rant, the gist of my proposal for a way to go is here[2]. –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Good stuff, Austronesier - I managed to find a quote by Frajzyngier (2012) that will satisfy RS/AC that "most linguists" support the African origin, with Militarev being the main exception (one source [maybe Frajzyngier, can't remember at the moment] refers to him as a "one of the rare supporters"). I think two relatively pithy paragraphs on each side in the question question should flesh it all out here. On dating there's probably even less to say, except to add that not everyone agrees that AA has to be "the oldest language family in the world".--Ermenrich (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What do people feel about the current expanded draft - it's three paragraphs rather than two, but I think it's still more concise than the current version. Am I missing anything important? (I don't mention genetics at all.) Do I go into too much detail anywhere?

I don't have much to add on dating and honestly, I'm not sure we need more (I know I've seen someone question whether we really need 4000 years of development between the first attestations of Egyptian and Semitic somewhere, but I can't find it and that probably indicates that it's not a widespread criticism). Found it, it was Güldemann - probably worth mentioning.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The draft looks great. We can think about adding a sentence or two about hypotheses that seek correlations between the spread of languages and demic dispersal as evidenced by genetic markers, but we should TNT-cleanup the main article first. I could imagine mentioning here Ehret et al. (2004) as an interdisciplinary work; plus Lancaster (2009) and Hodgson et al. (2014), as both have been cited in linguistic works. –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to incorporate a paragraph on genetics - if someone could look it over I would appreciate that. Or did you mean at the other article that needs to be TNT'd? I might prefer that. I'll move over the section without it now.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Subgrouping

I'm trying to fix up the subgrouping section now and I'm a bit unsure how to precede. As there is no agreement, there aren't really even "schools" on subgrouping, just various proposals. A few may be more common than others, but as it is, any scholar can proposal a subgrouping, which means that the section can simply be extended infinitely for every time any scholar states anything about two groups being related. The article currently cites one that was proposed in a footnote to a printed lecture (Newman 1980).

There must be some way of limiting this. The main proposals seem to be Diakonoff, Ehret, and Orel/Stolbova (vs. Cohen and Greenberg who argue for five/six coequal branches). No proposal has any real support that I can see except Cohen/Greenberg, which is essentially an agnostic position (and which, strangely, is the only one that Wikimedia commons has no image to illustrate).

Anyone have any ideas?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll note: Carsten Peust counts 27 proposals total; Güldemann discusses three of them Fleming, Bender, and Ehret. Perhaps it would behoove us to limit ourselves to those three, perhaps adding Diakanoff as discussed or mentioned in passing in other sources? Also: this paper (which we can't cite) discussed Ehret, Diakonoff, and Blench (2001).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've outlined five studies that seem to get discussed in other sources - I'm waiting to get my hands on some of the sources still to cite them more fully. I understand that the book coming out March 14 of this year will also included discussion of this problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if it really makes sense to discuss any of the individual proposals. Maybe just summarizing a few trends and then the problems with attempts to-date would suffice.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

graphics?

hey! i've been contributing to this article for a second now, and i'm wondering if there are any svg graphics on the wishlists of those more well-read in the field would want. :) i can potentially do maps, charts, or anything, really. Remsense (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Most likely yes, thank you! The first one I can think of is AA with six co-equal branches rather than showing any subgroupings. I will try to think of anything else.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

in the style of this famed one, right? 😀 Remsense (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A little simpler will do ;-).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

of course, i just meant the broad style and layout! will update when i come up with something. when you say no subgroupings, you mean no subbranches of each of the first-order six? do you want languages listed that are considered a part of each first-order branch? Remsense (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is: Wikimedia currently has various versions of e.g. Ehret's classification of Semitic, Berber, and Egyptian as forming a subbranch together of AA. What we really need is just a simple diagram with six branches coming from AA. Beyond that, whether we show the subbranches of e.g. Semitic, I leave to you. It could be interesting!--Ermenrich (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

hey, sorry for the long wait! the perfect really truly can be the enemy of the good for me. i mocked up a minimum viable version, and i have a few places i made choices i'm curious of your input.

A simplified diagram of the six-family classification of Afroasiatic languages, including Amazigh, Chadic, Cushitic, Kemic, Semitic, and Omotic families descendant from Proto-Afroasiatic.

First, I know the names Kemic and Amazigh are not standard for the wiki, but I felt uncomfortable using 'Berber' in a new document, as it were, though I'm not an expert on the connotations. Second, the format is a mess, but it's viable for people to edit and build upon, I was going to handwrite the SVG, but I decided to just go for Inkscape instead. They're not sorted in any respectable way, mostly because I am not qualified to do so, or make a delineation between language and language family here. hope this is helpful!! Remsense (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work! Unfortunately, I can't open the file, there seems to be some sort of error.

I would just use "Egyptian" rather than Kemic (I'm not aware of that being used in secondary literature. Second, on Berber, I would just quote Kossmann (2012):

Some Berber activists object to the name ‘Berber’, which they associate with ‘Barbarian’, and prefer terms such as ‘the Amazigh language’. As most Berberologists, including some who are very active in Berber culture and politics, continue to use the term ‘Berber’ in scientific publications, this will be done here too. I would support using the term that's used by most scholars in the field.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the policy w/r/t family names! i'll conform to it, as aforementioned i'm no expert.

I'm not sure why it doesn't show up sometimes, I presume it's some sort of temporary caching issue. https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Afroasiatic_6-Family_Diagram.svg/832px-Afroasiatic_6-Family_Diagram.svg.png is an automatic PNG render of the SVG. Remsense (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, I can see it now! It's good work!

Might I suggest:

1. adding Oromo and Somali under Cushitic
2. Numidian as extinct under Berber, and Tuareg as a living language
3. adding Wolaitta under Omotic?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've implemented these suggestions! sorry for the wait. i've also structured the document such that changes should be a lot easier to just snap into place to other inkscape users, like fixing the text baselines and such.

also, i'm wondering if it's worth adding hyperlinks to each box that take one to the respective wikipedia article. Remsense (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, for Egyptian, it might be worth hyphenating the language as Egyptian-Coptic or something like that.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about diagramming different stages of languages like in the IE one, but that feels like it's opening up a whole can of worms! will implement and think things over, thank you for your guidance! Remsense (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

not to unduly bump, but is anyone else interested in any other changes/additions/specifications before it's added to the article proper? Remsense (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, could you provide a link to the latest version?—-Ermenrich (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem! It's at the same link on Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Afroasiatic_6-Family_Diagram.svg Remsense (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What’s the difference between dead and extinct?— Ermenrich (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

oh—i apologize if this is not a generally-known distinction among linguistics. I've understood the terms as related in the opening paragraph of Extinct language, that:

An extinct language is a language that no longer has any speakers, especially if the language has no living descendants. In contrast, a dead language is one that is no longer the native language of any community, even if it is still in use, like Latin.

So, I categorized Egyptian as dead but not extinct, because it is still used liturgically, though it has no native speakers, from my understanding. It has occurred to me that the distinction could potentially have some edge cases, as obviously extinct languages that have received academic study in some sense have "speakers", but it doesn't feel like too problematic of a grey area to navigate for the purposes of a diagram like this. please let me know if i'm wrong!Remsense (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this looks good - let's add it to the article!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

One ultimate source, two homelands?

The current version of "Origins" says:

• Most scholars place the homeland of Afroasiatic near the center of its current distribution, in a region stretching from Northern Africa to "the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa."

The source for "Northern Africa" is Scheinfeldt, Soi & Tishkoff (2010), for "the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa" it's Ehret, Keita & Newman (2004). So far so good. But when I looked up the former for what they actually say, I found this: "Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36)". Citing this for "Northern Africa" seems legit, right? But what is their source "(36)"? Oddly enough, it is Ehret, Keita & Newman (2004)!

Looks like we're artificially differentiating things that actually refer to the same thing. Austronesier (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I’m going to revert the addition for that reason.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems, if I am correct, Ehret, Keita & Newman (2004) based their location on haplogroup data: "A critical reading of the data in genetic analyses, specifically those of Y chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving from the Horn or southeastern Sahara northwards to the Nile Valley, northwest Africa, the Levant, and Aegean (14,15). The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic." Another one, Kitchen et al. 2009[3], has another proposal based on 'Bayesian phylogenetic analysis', showing the homeland of Afroasiatic in the" Red Sea coastal region of Egypt (Figure 1.), but funnily enough also citing Ehret 1995, and 2004 ("An origin of Afroasiatic along the African coast of the Red Sea, supported by comparative analyses (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004)". Either way, perhaps just stating:

Most scholars place the homeland of Afroasiatic near the center of its current distribution, somewhere in Northeast Africa."

would be a better solution? If my first observation about Ehret 2004 is correct, than we should also take Hogdson et al. 2014 into account, as their findings are more recent than that about haplogroups. I do not object the revert, although I continue to argue that "an origin within Africa" is to be preferred over "an African origin". What do you think?Krause96 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why a less precise formulation like "northeast Africa" would be preferable to the more specific statement we currently quote (which is stated to be the communis opinio). I think you are drawing a difference where there isn't one, just minor differences in formulations. The Horn of Africa and the southeastern Sahara include the Red Sea coast, for instance, and both the southeastern Sahara and the Horn of Africa are in Northeast Africa.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I know from past discussions about population genetics articles that some academics have used some of those broad terms in quite specific ways. From memory the Rome team who studied E-M35 for example tended to use NE Africa to refer to Egypt, and NOT the Horn of Africa. For some people I presume northern Africa will imply Mediterranean countries, while for others it will stretch to the Horn of Africa. These are just observations though, not proposals. Naming the adjacent seas, deserts or rivers might help avoid problems though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Lancaster, the terminologies vary. Furthermore, is the 2004 paper representing the 'communis opinio', as stated by Ehret, Keita & Newman (2004)? Especially when younger papers make suggestions of the Red Sea coast in Egypt, the Sinai, and or Northern Africa. I think they all have a reason why they used these specific regions, rather than "the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa". All these regions would however fall in the 'Northeast African region', stretching from Egypt to the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa. Thus I think that the term 'Northeast African' is more reliable and practical, as it includes all these different regions and does not base the whole model on the formulation of one cite. The Red Sea coast of Egypt does not seem to be the 'southeastern Sahara', which more corresponds to Sudan and partially overlaps with proposals for the Nilo-Saharan* homeland. (*if indeed a valid family, but at least some of them would have be spoken there, proto-Eastern Sudanic etc). I would at least mention Egypt, specifically 'southeastern Egypt' as Ehret actually did too. Scheinfeldt et al. 2010 for example also mentioned the Kebaran culture and] Mushabian culture in the Sinai, as possibly associated with proto-Afroasiatic. And I repeat that the 2004 paper of Ehret (and co.) does make their statement based on than proposed haplogroup distribution, making the argument that this region is the most likely place, although not ruling out other regions, as their main point is to give a response/clarification why they believe the homeland is placed within Africa. Yet, the other papers which cite them do refer to slightly different regions, such as specifically Northern Africa, Egypt, Sinai. Do these papers become irrelevant? They do not cite the 'southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa' but rather the model that Afroasiatic originated within Africa. Taking all this together, the 'communis opinio' in 2023 is hardly this narrowed region, but rather includes several regions in Northeast Africa (stretching from Egypt to the Southeastern Sahara). Perhaps the new book will give some clarification.Krause96 (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I see no reason to replace the specific formulation of Ehret et al. when they are the ones everyone else is citing. They state: [Diamond and Bellwood] fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea [of an Asian origin] in the first place. This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa. We are speaking here of linguistic, not genetic research. The fact that geneticists cite them and then change the formulation somewhat is therefore not really necessary for us to mention. The only change that I would propose to the article is perhaps changing "most scholars" to "most linguists" before that specific claim.

It seems to me, moreover, that the vagueness of "Northeastern Africa" has the added disadvantage of potentially implying that Proto-AA speakers might not have had a "Black" appearance (for, as AL notes, many will take it as implying the Mediterranean coast, which many consider to be "white"). This weakens the impact of the fact that the majority of scholars believe the language family originated in Africa and are agnostic about its "racial" appearance. This is not an area we should be wading into.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I get your arguments, especially regarding the "vagueness of Northeastern Africa" and fringe concepts about "race" ("black" or "white" or their associations with certain regions). As you stated afterwards, linguists do not make statements about "racial appearance", neither do (serious) geneticists. Furthermore, geographic regions are not defining "racial appearance" either. The whole region, including the Horn of Africa, obviously had a vibrant history, as noted by Hogdson et al. 2014 and succeeding papers on African history. This argument does not seem related to the points I brought up and discussed here. My concern is that the narrow region of "southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa" is not the sole proposal and neither the 'communis opinio'. It may have been in 2004, but probably not in 2023, as following papers did not use this regions specifically, but more broadly Northeast Africa, or specifically the 'Egyptian Red Sea coastal regions', 'Sinai', or 'Northern Africa'. As I understand, you argue that the succeeding papers citing Ehret 2004, and their regional proposals, are irrelevant. Not sure if this view is correct, but I get the point. We will have to wait for further publications which will perhaps clarify it. I will not object the current version if all others agree with it, especially as there currently is no new paper specifically favoring a certain region (although Kitchen et al. 2009 graphically argues for the Red Sea coastal region of Egypt). It's just a pity that we must rely on a 2004 paper IMHO. Anyway, thanks for your points.Krause96 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

hey something is not here

where Hebrew language is? I cannot see it

if it there is so sorry

ps want a joke? how does a rabbi make his coffee? Hebrews it. 95.105.154.97 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The intro contains a link to Hebrew? Not sure what you mean. Ogress 13:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hebrew is a mentioned in various places as a Semitic language, including in the current version of the final paragraph of the lead. However, with only 9 million speakers, it is not mentioned as prominently as some other AA languages, including several Semitic languages (Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya) that have more speakers or just as many.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"African"

@Krause96:, can you explain the reasoning for changing the adjectives "African" and "Asian" to "within Africa" and "within Asia". This is wordier and does not improve on the sense of the passages you've changed. Furthermore, you changed The African languages of Afroasiatic are not more closely related to each other than they are to Semitic, as one would expect if only Semitic had remained in an Asian AA homeland while all other branches had spread from there. to The Afroasiatic languages spoken today in Africa are not more closely related to each other than they are to Semitic, as one would expect if only Semitic had remained in an Western Asian homeland while all other branches had spread from there. This falsifies the sense of the sentence. One of the African AA languages being discussed is Egyptian, which is not "spoken today in Africa." (You've also introduced a grammatical mistake with "an Western Asian homeland"). Further, why removal "African" from pre-Neolithic African hunter-gatherers - this is the important point of the argument.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As said before, (and see below), it is not supported by the reference. It does not make sense to write "an origin within Africa among pre-neolithic African hunter-gatherers"... this is not what is written in the source. The source specifically says hunter-gatherers in Africa. Furthermore, what does "African" mean? What is the definition? What does it tell us? The encyclopedic correct form simply is among pre-neolithic hunter-gatherers in Africa.Krause96 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

African obviously means "originating on the African continent". We are not quoting the source, we are paraphrasing it, and the use of "African" here is obviously supported by a reference that argues that Afroasiatic originated among hunter-gatherers who lived in Africa. The point is that these people came from Africa (in this origin theory), so I can't really see why you object to the wording, nor can I see how it's "unencyclopedic".

Will you respond to my first point about the sentence I quoted?--Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats not what these studies imply. They are linguistic studies about the place of origin of the proto-language, not about the origin and genetic roots of its speakers, let alone we know that these regions harbored elevated (West) Eurasian admixture since at least 15,000 years, as shown in the Taforalt/Iberomaurusian genomes. There is no people which are strictly "African" or stricty "Asian". The whole papers talk about the place of origin of the language. Indo-European originated in the European Steppe, yet we do not say Hindi originated in Europe, as its place of origin was not Europe. Neither were the Hindi speakers European. We do not know where the people ultimately come from, neither does the references say so. They say that proto-afroasiatic originated among hunter-gatherers in Africa. There is no argument about the root of these hunter-gatherers at all. Modern Northern Africans live in Africa too, they are African, or do you agree with certain "NAZI-like" people who call them invaders, thiefs, hordes, etc.? The population of Northern Africa can be traced back to the Paleolithic period, long before the origin of Proto-Afroasiatic. As Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019) concluded, where does "African" start and where does it end? The change to "within Africa" and "within Asia" is just to follow logic and encyclopedic wording. We do not refer to Indo-European as "European language family", but a language family to have originated in Europe. To the second point, that was a mistake, the "modern" can be removed.Krause96 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't Strawman me. You appear to be reading things into my reply which I have not said.

That is exactly what the sources supporting an African origin of AA say. They even use the words "African origin". I can quote not only the study I quoted below but several others, if you wish.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Contradictions

First, I think the presentation in the "homeland section" is not very encyclopedic, but rather seems to be, in part, ideologically influenced. The highlighting of Blench commentary for example does not seem relevant to the section, but rather as possible critic to the (West) Asian model.

Why Militarev views are only partially presented (West Asian farmers), while in the 2009 paper he says something totaly different. Militariev argues for West Asian pastoralists! This is also a rather different proposal based on new evidence, and not identical with the agriculturalists model. This must be corrected.

I also argue to include Hogdson et al. 2014, Mc Call 1984 and Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019), as this is obviously relevant. There is no clear cut between "African" and "Asian", and to think that the two are one coherent group without any influence from outside is quite shocking to me. As in my latest comment here, implying any "racialist" agendas here (as stating they may or may not be "Black African" or having "black apperance" or "white" or "yellow" or "green" is unecyclopedic and out of context).

My main concerns are that the paragraphs do partially not correspond with the cited references, nor do they give the full view. The agruments are partially outdated, with more recent studies clearly stating "Northeast African" (not my main point, but I still think it is dubious to not present that). And in regards to Ehret and co, they cite even older papers (inline 5-8), that hardly can represent the currenc linguistic concensus (if there is any). Krause96 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not true that more recent arguments present Asian as the dominant theory. See the intro of Ancient Egyptian and Afroasiatic: Rethinking the Origins (2023):

The Levantine hypothesis argues that Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken by the archaeological Natufian culture, which is known for introducing agriculture in the Near East. Alexander Militarev, the main proponent of this hypothesis, advanced glottochronological dates of Proto-Afroasiatic migrations in the ninth through the tenth millenium BCE based on his reconstruction of a plethora of farming and pastoral prehistoric vocabulary [...] This hypothesis has been contested by the authors of different theories involving an African origin of Afroasiatic, who accuse it of biased Mediterranean and philology centrism, doubt the convoluted Levantine migration scenario that would have resulted after the likely first split of the Omotic-Cushitic branch, and challenge the real validity of Militarev's reconstructed terms and evidence related to Proto-Afroasiatic agricultural practices. (p. 5)

The chapter goes on to discuss the theories of Ehret and Carsten Peust and while not taking a side between them, notes that Theories of African origin have an obvious advantage in that the overwhelming majority of Afroasiatic languages were or are currently spoken within the boundaries of this continent (ibid.)

The fact that Militarev has also reconstructed pastoralist terms for Proto-AA does not change the fact that he is primarily concerned with the Proto-Natufian farming culture. His new proposal is thus not a "compromise" as you put it. This is precisely how its summarized in the 2023 intro I cited above.

If you think things from other scholars should be added here (as opposed to at the dedicated Afroasiatic homeland article), then please provide quotations and page numbers so we can verify the information and how you are adding it.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd also note that despite your desire to removal the adjectival use of the words "African" and "Asian" from the article (for whatever reason), this is precisely the language we find scholars using in the passages I just quoted.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that "Asian" is more dominant - quite in contrary! I said that more recent studies call into question the dichotomy between "African" and "Asian". We know that there were massive pre-agriculturalist migration waves into Africa, before the development of Proto-Afroasiatic. We know that all modern Afroasiatic-speaking populations score high amounts of Taforalt and Natufian-like ancestry (which was not limited to the Levant, but found throughout Ancient Northern Africa). My point is that there is no clear cut between what is "African" and "Asian" here. As Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019) summarized quite well. The pre-agricultural migration long predated the later "Neo-Levantine" Neolithic wave. Although that is off-topic, only to clarify. I do not support an Asian origin at all.Krause96 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually meant you should provide quotes here on the talk page before re-adding. I'm going to try to figure out how to fit your sources into the bibliography now and reformat.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at your quotes and sources now, I'll provide them here. The first is from a chapter in here, a book I don't have immediate access to:

• Given the dually "deeply-rooted" presence of Afro-Asiatic languages both in Africa and in the Levant, the linguistic debate on the origin of this family is still open (Kitchen et al. 2009;Ehret et al. 2004) and probably settling on an intermediate "across-the-Sinai" solution. This shows that even relatively well studied cultural packages such as languages point to early interactions between Africa and the neighbouring Eurasian cultures or, in other words, to a geographical shrinking of what can currently be defined as "strictly African" in a long term perspective.

According to this quote, it is linguists who are settling on a "across-the-Sinai" solution - but this is contradicted by even a cursory look at what the linguists themselves are saying (e.g. the cited work by Kitchen and Ehret, see also the quote from 2023 above). This, again, does not appear to be what you are arguing.

The next quote is from this article from 2014. I've decided to supplement it with fuller context:

• We find that most of the non-African ancestry in the HOA can be assigned to a distinct non-African origin Ethio-Somali ancestry component, which is found at its highest frequencies in Cushitic and Semitic speaking HOA populations (Table 2, Figure 2). In addition to verifying that most HOA populations have substantial non-African ancestry, which is not controversial [11]–[14], [16], we argue that the non-African origin Ethio-Somali ancestry in the HOA is most likely pre-agricultural. In combination with the genomic evidence for a pre-agricultural back-to-Africa migration into North Africa [43], [61] and inference of pre-agricultural migrations in and out-of-Africa from mitochondrial and Y chromosome data [13], [32]–[37], [47], [99]–[102], these results contribute to a growing body of evidence for migrations of human populations in and out of Africa throughout prehistory [5]–[7] and suggests that human hunter-gatherer populations were much more dynamic than commonly assumed. [...] We close with a provisional linguistic hypothesis. The proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers are thought to have lived either in the area of the Levant or in east/northeast Africa [8], [107], [108]. Proponents of the Levantine origin of Afro-Asiatic tie the dispersal and differentiation of this language group to the development of agriculture in the Levant beginning around 12 ka [8], [109], [110]. In the African-origins model, the original diversification of the Afro-Asiatic languages is pre-agricultural, with the source population living in the central Nile valley, the African Red Sea hills, or the HOA [108], [111]. In this model, later diversification and expansion within particular Afro-Asiatic language groups may be associated with agricultural expansions and transmissions, but the deep diversification of the group is pre-agricultural. We hypothesize that a population with substantial Ethio-Somali ancestry could be the proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers. A later migration of a subset of this population back to the Levant before 6 ka would account for a Levantine origin of the Semitic languages [18] and the relatively even distribution of around 7% Ethio-Somali ancestry in all sampled Levantine populations (Table S6). Later migration from Arabia into the HOA beginning around 3 ka would explain the origin of the Ethiosemitic languages at this time [18], the presence of greater Arabian and Eurasian ancestry in the Semitic speaking populations of the HOA (Table 2, S6), and ROLLOFF/ALDER estimates of admixture in HOA populations between 1–5 ka (Table 1).

This is again not really what you're arguing: the authors "provisionally" argue that AA originated with an earlier migration out of Asia than Militarev. This is underscored when they say "migration back to the Levant".

You next cite an article from 1998 but without providing a quote. It appears to argue essentially the same thing: My prediction is that Africa will turn out to be the cradle of Afroasiatic, though the speakers of Proto-Afroasiatic were a reflux population from Southwest Asia. This is more in line with your argument, but note that it is not really part of the discussion on the matter.

Finally, you cite a study on Asian migration into Africa during the paleolithic [4]. This study does not mention the question of AA origins at all and it's inclusion is therefore wp:SYNTH.

I'm going to conclude that the text as you have added it is both WP:UNDUE for this article (it's basically a reformulation of the Asian origins theory, but one that does not appear to have much traction in literature on AA) as well as has problems with WP:SYNTH. I'm accordingly going to remove it at least until we can develop a consensus here on whether or how it should be included in this article, and with what wording.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning and arguments on this matter related to the Wikipedia policies. Thank you for going into details of the respective sources. I will try to propose a re-worded paragraph on that based on your arguments. I must note that I am not happy with the exclusion of relevant data on this topic, but per Wikipedia policies it is SYNTH and we will have to wait until reviews in the literature include the new findings.

My suggestion would be:

• Some scholars, while accepting an origin of Afroasiatic within Africa, argue that the speakers of Proto-Afroasiatic can be linked to a Paleolithic and pre-agricultural migration wave into Africa from Western Asia, which subsequently dispersed in Africa, including a later back-migration by the Semitic-branch to the Levant. This view is broadly supported by archaeogenetic evidence.

Sources for this would be McCall and Hogdson et al. 2014.

Furthermore, it would be very usefull to include Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019):

• Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019) argue that given on the still open debate on the origin of Afroasiatic, the concensus will probably settling on an intermediate "across-the-Sinai" solution. They also note that the very early interactions between African and Eurasian cultures, point "to a geographical shrinking of what can currently be defined as "strictly African" in a long term perspective".

I think this gives a reliable and informative addition for the readers on this matter.Krause96 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that this is a major position in scholarship - note that the final study you cited (which does not mention AA) also mentions migrations from Africa to Asia. While we cannot cite this in the article due to WP:SYNTH, it still should inform how we present information, and the articles you cite appear nowhere in the 2023 volume when discussion is had of genetic evidence. It might belong at Afroasiatic Homeland.

I'll also note that the second chapter of that 2023 volume, by Chelsea Sanker, says Establishing a likely homeland of Afroasiatic can help inform subgrouping. Most evidence suggests that it was in the southeastern Sahara or closer to the coast, in the horn of Africa. Genetic data are also consistent with dispersion from this region. (p. 30). The first statement is cited to Diakonoff 1988 and Ehret at al. 2004. The statement on genetics is cited to Underhill et al. 2001, p. 55.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Your argumentation on this does not make any sense to me. Its not about any position at all. It is a representation on the specific analyses by Hogdson et al. 2014 and the earlier, similar view by McCall, on the formation of Proto-AA. They do not contradict the "origin model within Africa". The other papers (presented by you) on the homeland of Afroasiatic do not deal with this topic (the root of the specific populations), but rather say this or that region (and its inhabidants) are a valid group to be associated with the early AA speakers. - Yes, it mentions migrations from Africa to Asia, but carefully try to understand the respective meaning.

• While we cannot cite this in the article due to WP:SYNTH, it still should inform how we present information, and the articles you cite appear nowhere in the 2023 volume when discussion is had of genetic evidence. - I am sorry, I do not understand what you want to tell me.

To your last comment, how is this relevant to the points I raised, or the evidence described by Hogdson et al. 2014 or Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019)? A Y-chromosome study from 2001, which does not even talk about this topic but rather about possible places of origin for various haplogroups does not contradict that either. Lastly, your quote speaks about its place of dispersion! The Hogdson et al. 2014 study nor McCall nor Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019) (nor I) contradict that. The whole addition I presented is information to better understand the whole history and directly linked to PAA. There is no serious reason to not include this information. These are informative additions in a clear, short, and on-topic way (neither SYNTH nor UNDUE), and there is no reason to not include that way. I am also not sure with what exactly you disagree.

The studies and the 2023 volume do not contradict with my studies at all. They deal with the place of origin of AA and the place of its dispersion. The studies I want to add give further information on the earlier history of AA, PAA, and how it came to be (within Africa). Why you again point out to me that the papers support a place of dispersion in the southeastern Sahara or the adjacent HOA? I neither disputed that, nor do the papers I presented. In this regard I renew my argument from above: the papers give a reliable and informative addition for the readers on this matter and should be included. There is nothing per Wikipedia policies or topic-relevant issues to prevent the inclusion of these papers.Krause96 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As recently added by you: It might belong at Afroasiatic Homeland. Yes, in a more elaborated way. Here, the summary article, should mention this too. As it is relevant, informative, and does not do any harm to the reading flow or topic.Krause96 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As there has been no reply, I am going to include the relevant information inline with raised concerns and in agreement with the sections readingflow. CordialementKrause96 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Do you want to fool me? There is no reason to not include this (other than your obvious personal dislike for whatever reason), secondly, you did not reply for three days while obviously being active elsewhere, but fast at removing again without valid reasonings. It is on your side to give valid reasons why not to mention clearly relevant information! WP:NPOV. May I quote it for you here? All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. That has been done by me, but you keep making excuses to remove it by personal arguments, rather factual! If you can not participate in a discussion, also not remove it! This is disruptive.Krause96 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: requesting commentary of another user please.

This is properly sourced, on which reason this should not be added. Its directly relevant and does not contradict the section written by Ermenrich, but adds to it. Scholars, such as Hogdson et al., present archaeogenetic evidence in favor for a place of dispersion within Africa, but argue that the speakers of Proto-Afroasiatic can ultimately be linked to a Paleolithic and pre-agricultural migration wave into Africa from Western Asia, and that the Semitic-branch represents a back-migration to the Levant. Similar arguments have already been raised before.

This points are to be presented in the article.

I may agree to not include this paragraph: Pagani and Crevecoeur (2019) argue that given on the still open debate on the origin of Afroasiatic, the concensus will probably settling on an intermediate "across-the-Sinai" solution. They also note that the very early interactions between African and Eurasian cultures, point "to a geographical shrinking of what can currently be defined as "strictly African" in a long term perspective"., but think it is strange why Ermenrich has such unconstructive and biased view here.Krause96 (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not pinged, but replying. I have reverted your addition and will explain my (more than just procedural) rationale later today. Until then, I recommend to assume good faith on both sides. –Austronesier (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Krause96 I have already explained that I have not seen evidence that a "Back to Africa earlier than Militarev theory that allows us to still say AA originated in Africa" theory is widely supported in the scholarship. There is no citation of such a theory at all in any of the general descriptions of the problem I have seen - you are relying on two genetics studies (one from 1998 which makes very provisional conclusions) and one from 2014, and a more recent paper that questions the meaning of "African". Using these papers as examples of citations to each other is not convincing when they are not cited widely elsewhere. While it may be that scholars should question the meaning of "African", that is not what Wikipedia is for. It summarizes the opinion of academic sources, keeping in mind WP:DUE. This is an article about the Afroasiatic languages in general and should not be encumbered by theories that attract little note in the scholarly literature. Details like that belong in Afroasiatic homeland. Nor can we try to harmonize our description with this minor theory, which your edits adding things like "dispersal from" and removing the term "African" from "African origin" (a term found in the secondary literature) have done.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents: first of all, all detail about the Afroasiatic homeland belongs (surprise!) in the main article Afroasiatic homeland. The homeland section in this article can be reduced to a short summary of the key points of the main article, of course with due weight (which latter we collectively have to establish). As you will see, the genetics section of the main article is filled with WP:SYNTH Y-haplogroup "cruft" and badly needs a fresh breeze, so pieces like the introduction by Pagani and Crevecoeur are very welcome there (and even might be mentioned here if the text of Afroasiatic homeland is consolidated). But adding things only here and not there turns the summary section of this article into an undesirable WP:content fork.

One thing we should avoid is to bring in literature that does not directly address the AA homeland question, such as Fregel's chapter that was added at an earlier occasion[5]. A great work, but it's not ours to link this research to the AA homeland question unless other reliable sources do and that in turn we could cite. Since you haven't added it again, I presume that's spilled milk. Btw, a bit off-topic and OR/SYNTH on my part: why did you clip the quote from Fregel only to include the Loosdrecht part, but did not include the Lazaridis narative, which Fregel appears to consider just as plausible? The Dzudzuana ancestry is so old, that the "back migration" might have preceded the time when Proto-AA spoken by many, many millenia. That's a bit like tracing (pre-pre-)Proto-IE to Siberia based on the fact that the Yamnayans carried 50% EHG ancestry, which in turn largely derived from the ANE population of Siberia. Quite a stretch, isn't it (but well, some Old Kids on the Blogs still do these things...)?

Back to the core issue: this is the article about AA languages. We can mention things like the possibile location of the homeland (= source of dispersal; there is no other definition of homeland) and correlations with findings from population genetics (again, provided it's not us who do the correlation). Linguistic spread does not necessarily have to correlate one-to-one with demic spread that is detected via archeogenetics (language shift without much geneflow is very real and not as uncommon as many non-linguists apparently often believe), and we should not give undue weight to overly naive models that take Y-haplogroups (especially when restricted to present-day populations!) as infallible proxies of demic spread. But: Proto-AA is the deepest we can get linguistically, so this article does not need look farther back than that. Sure, reliable sources (well, at least one) do undertake the tenuous endeavor of further tracing the genetic ancestry of the presumed population of Proto-AA speakers back to earlier populations of completely (and principally) unknown linguistic affliation. These are details probably worth mentioning in Afroasiatic homeland, but not here, which IMHO is strictly about the linguistic subgroup. –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)