Beginning at Wed May 13 20:38:16 2020
Found match for regex: *] Syriac (+ romanized), Akkadian (romanized only), and Ge'ez (+ romanized)Found match for regex: # {{lb|en|linguistics}} {{initialism of|en|Afro-Asiatic}}Found match for regex: #: {{ux|en|the Indo-European language '''family'''; the Afro-Asiatic language '''family'''}}Found match for regex: # The ] ] spoken (and written) in ] EgyptFound match for regex: # {{n-g|Used to describe word roots in ] languages that consist of three letters.}}Found match for regex: # {{ngd|Used to describe word roots in ] languages which consist of four letters}}Found match for regex: # Of or pertaining to a subdivision of Afro-Asiatic ]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc.Found match for regex: * David Appleyard, ''Beja as a Cushitic language'', in ''Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies: In Memoriam W. Vycichl'' (Yem ''into'' "mother")Found match for regex: # A ] of the ] branch of the ] family, spoken by over 3,000,000 people in ]; native name '']''.Found match for regex: * Nouns ending in {{lang|he|ת}} tend to be feminine, and many adjectives and participles form their feminine singular forms by appending {{lang|he|ת}} to the masculine singular form (plus vowel changes). This is a reflex of ].Found match for regex: From {{der|ar|sem-pro|*šidṯ-|*šidṯatum|t=six|}}, cognates with {{cog|he|-}} {{he-m|שישה|dwv=שִׁשָּׁה|tr=shishá}}, {{cog|syc|ܫܬ݁ܳܐ|tr=šətā}}, {{cog|gez|ስድስቱ|tr=sədəstu}}, {{cog|uga|𐎘𐎘𐎚}}, and {{cog|akk|𒐋|tr=šedištum}}. Ultimately from a ] root; compare {{cog|egy|sjsw}}, {{cog|tzm|ⵙⴹⵉⵚ}}, and {{cog|ha|shidà}}.Found match for regex: *], ]Found match for regex: # A conjectural and not widely accepted ] of languages including the ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] languages, and less commonly including the ] and ] languages as well.Found match for regex: An ] word found in both Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan, cognate to {{cog|kr|fùfú}}.Found match for regex: # An ] ] spoken around Mt. Chenoua in Tipasa, ].Found match for regex: # An Afro-Asiatic ] spoken in the Dahlak Archipelago of ].Found match for regex: #REDIRECT ]Found match for regex: # {{lb|en|grammar|rare}} a ] ] in ] languages contrasting with the {{l|en|construct state}} by the noun not being {{l|en|dependent}} {{qualifier|more commonly called {{l|en|absolute state}}, or {{l|en|indeterminate state}} if the specific language contrasts a {{l|en|determinate state}} with the construct state}}Found match for regex: # The Afro-Asiatic language family.Found match for regex: ] –Found match for regex: :::Re: "'''Pattern''' is not a part of speech or a function": I'm not sure I follow. Patterns serve many of the same roles in Semitic languages (and probably other Afro-Asiatic languages) that affixes do in English. (This is not to suggest that Semitic languages don't have affixes, just that they ''also'' have patterns.) The only reason I can think of to exclude patterns is that it's hard to figure out what article titles to use. (For those not familiar with Semitic languages: words are typically formed from "roots", which are a series of consonants that pertain to the meaning, and "patterns", which are a series of vowels, possibly plus a prefix and/or suffix, that pertain primarily to the grammar. For example, the root L-M-D pertains to learning or studying; use it with the pattern -o-é-et, and you get ''lomédet'' "am/is/are learning (fem. sing.)", but use it with the pattern -i-é-, and you get ''liméd'' " taught".) Re: using the "Verb" header with a "stative" tag: Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Re: "Any new header ought to have a sufficient number of uses required before being seriously considered.": As long as there's a catch-all header, that's fine. I don't think it's necessary to give (say) circumfixes a "circumfix" header, but I ''do'' think it's necessary to include circumfixes and give them a header of some sort. —]<sub><small><i>]</i></small></sub> 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Found match for regex: # The ] Coptic language of ].Found match for regex: *Words acquired from ] or ] (or other ] languages) are not included.Found match for regex: From the {{der|he|sem-pro|*šidṯ-|t=six|}}, cognates with {{cog|he|-}} {{he-m|שישה|dwv=שִׁשָּׁה|tr=shishá}}, {{cog|syc|ܫܬ݁ܳܐ|tr=štāʾ}}, {{cog|gez|ስድስቱ|tr=sədəstu}}, {{cog|uga|𐎘𐎘𐎚}}, {{cog|ar|سِتْ}} and {{cog|akk|𒐋|tr=šeššet}}. Ultimately from a ] root; compare to {{cog|egy|sjsw}}, {{cog|tzm|ⵙⴹⵉⵚ}}, and {{cog|ha|shidà}}.Found match for regex: : The part of a word that forms its core and gives its most basic meaning; also the part of the word that is left when all ]es are removed. For example, in {{m|en|insubordination}}, the root is {{m|en||ord}}, while in {{m|en|unspeakableness}} it is {{m|en|speak}}. The root is often the first part of the word (as in ] and often in ] languages), but it may also be the last part, or it may only consist of the consonants of the word (as in the ] languages).Found match for regex: Further origin uncertain. Perhaps a borrowing from a Semitic language, from {{der|fa|sem-pro|*may-|t=water, liquid, sap}}; compare {{cog|akk|𒀀|tr=mū}}. The final ''-m'' could be from a plural suffix (the word being a plurale tantum in some languages) or from reduplication; compare {{cog|he|מים|tr=mayim}}.<ref>Alexander Militarev, A complete etymology-based hundred wordlist of Semitic updated: Items 75-100, in the Journal of Language Relationhip; entry 94 water, especially the Afro-Asiatic meaning of sap, liquid substance.</ref>Found match for regex: # An Afro-Asiatic language spoken in southeastern ].Found match for regex: This is a list of '''] stems (] roots and extensions)''' with their reflexes in several ] ] (i.e. actually-pronounced forms with vowels, as opposed to Semitic pure ] ]). Only stems attested in ], or with cognates in other ] groups, can be confidently included in Proto-Semitic; others must be placed in West Semitic. There is some controversy in Semitic linguistics over the sibilants' pronunciation.Found match for regex: # ]Found match for regex: With the regular sound correspondence of ] ] to Semitic ], ]; the corresponding root in ], a fellow ] language, is {{ar-root|ز|ك|و|nocat=1}}, which does have the meaning of “free”, “to be purified from excess”, “to dispense of filth or materials”, to improve”, “to free something of inefficiencies”, “to shed its burdens”, “not to be bogged down”, “to allow to thrive or move freely”.<ref name="Lane">“زكو” in Edward William Lane (1863), Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate, pages 1240-1241.</ref>Found match for regex: Uncertain, but usually regarded as a non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic loanword, see {{cog|akk|𒄠𒋛|tr=pīru}}.Found match for regex: # A highly endangered Afro-Asiatic language spoken in ] State, Nigeria.Found match for regex: In Hebrew, as in other Afro-Asiatic languages, verbs are formed by applying one of several patterns or ''binyanim'' ({{m|he|בניין|בניינים / בִּנְיָנִים|buildings|tr=binyaním}}) to an underlying '']'' ({{m|he|שׁוֹרֶשׁ||root|tr=shóresh}}). For example, the verbs {{m|he|הִסְפִּיק||to be enough, to suffice|tr=hispík}}, {{m|he|סיפק|סיפק / סִפֵּק|to supply, to satisfy|tr=sipék}}, and {{m|he|הִסְתַּפֵּק||to have enough, to be satisfied|tr=histapék}} are all formed from the root {{m|he|ס־פ־ק|tr=s-p-k}}, which forms words (among others) with meanings related to "enough". Verbs formed from the same root usually have meanings that are related, often in systematic ways.Found match for regex: Tentatively from {{inh|sem-pro|afa-pro|*kul-||dog}}. Diakonoff argues that the *b of the root is likely a fossilized ] suffix {{m|afa-pro|*-(a)b-}} pertaining to “harmful animals”, comparing Proto-Afro-Asiatic {{m|afa-pro|*ǯiʾb-|*ǯiʾ-b-|wolf, jackal}} ({{cog|sem-pro|*ðiʾb-}}) as well as {{cog|sem-pro|*ʿaqrab-|*ʿaqr-ab-|scorpion}}, {{m|sem-pro|*θaʿlab-|*θaʿl-ab-|fox}}, {{m|sem-pro|*dubb-|*dub-b, *dab-b-|bear}} and {{m|sem-pro|*ʾarnab-|*ʾarn-ab-|hare}}.<ref>{{R:Diakonoff 1988|page=57}}</ref>Found match for regex: {{prefix|en|proto|Afro-Asiatic}}Found match for regex: Common ].Found match for regex: * David Appleyard, ''Beja as a Cushitic language'', in ''Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies: In Memoriam W. Vycichl'' (Zayse ''indo'' "mother")Found match for regex: {{also|Afro-Asiatic}}Found match for regex: *]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]Found match for regex: *]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]Found match for regex: Possibly cognate with {{cog|sem-pro|*ʿal-}}; compare {{cog|ar|عَلَى||on, over}}, {{cog|he|עַל|tr=ʿal||on}}, {{cog|arc|עַל|tr=ʿal||on}}. If so, perhaps from a form such as {{inh|egy|afa-pro|*x̣al}}.<ref name=Loprieno>{{R:egy:Loprieno|32, 38, 55–56}}</ref> However, some authors consider such a correspondence irregular.<ref>Rubin, Aaron D. (2004) “An Outline of Comparative Egypto-Semitic Morphology” in ''Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) studies: in memoriam W. Vycichl'', page 483</ref>Found match for regex: # <span class="partlynew">]</span> ]Found match for regex: #: ''A '''Nostraticist''' studies the Eurasiatic (Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic), Karvelian, Dravidian and/or Afro-Asiatic language families.''Found match for regex: # An ] ] spoken in parts of ] and ].Found match for regex: # ]Found match for regex: Usually regarded as a loanword from some other non-Semitic or Afro-Asiatic language. Has been compared to Middle {{der|akk|egy|]-]}} (with the Egyptian definite article prefixed) from {{der|akk|afa-pro|*leb-|t=elephant}}. Blažek 1998 postulates {{der|akk|sem-pro|*pirl-}}, with assimilation r-l → r-r or r-l → l-l, yielding Akkadian forms {{m|akk|𒁉𒊒𒌝|tr=pīru}} and {{m|akk|𒉿𒄿𒇻|tr=pīlu}}.Found match for regex: With the regular sound change of ] ] → Semitic ], ]; the corresponding root in ], a fellow ] language, is {{ar-root|ز|ك|و}}, which does have the meaning of “free”, “to be purified from excess”, “to dispense of filth or materials”, to improve”, “to free something of inefficiencies”, “to shed its burdens”, “not to be bogged down”, “to allow to thrive or move freely”.<ref name="Lane">“زكو” in Edward William Lane (1863), Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate, pages 1240-1241</ref>Found match for regex: == ] and ] (as well as ]) ==Found match for regex: # ]Found match for regex: |]||4<br/><small>(4)</small>||<span style="color:green">+2</span><br/><small>(<span style="color:green">+2</span>)</small>||4<br/><small>(4)</small>||<span style="color:green">+2</span><br/><small>(<span style="color:green">+2</span>)</small>||4<br/><small>(4)</small>||<span style="color:green">+2</span><br/><small>(<span style="color:green">+2</span>)</small>||0||0||4<br/><small>(4)</small>||<span style="color:green">+2</span><br/><small>(<span style="color:green">+2</span>)</small>Found match for regex: *]Found match for regex: A possible Afro-Asiatic cognate is found in Egyptian (New Kingdom) ''qr.tj'' "horns (dual)". A possible loan relation with Indo-European {{m|ine-pro|*ḱerh₂-||horn}} has also been suggested.<!--My Middle Kingdom dictionary says that qrt means doorbolt, and that the dual form would be qrtuj.-->Found match for regex: However, there are very few family codes from ISO, so I propose listing them all together. Since ] displays Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic and East Semitic, shouldn't it include Semitic and Afro-Asiatic as well? --] 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Found match for regex: # An ] ] of ].Found match for regex: # {{lb|en|dated|traditional|linguistics}} ]Found match for regex: # A sub-family of the ] family of languages.Found match for regex: # A sub-family of the Afro-Asiatic languages; ].Found match for regex: *:The '''Egyptic''' language of Ancient Egypt, like all the others just mentioned, belongs to a linguistic phylum that is classified as Afro-Asiatic, Found match for regex: :::::::::Examples are abundant. For example, when Greenberg reformed the classification of African languages, he coined the new terms ] (replacing the older term ]), ], ] and ], among many others. Most of these are still used today. -- ] 21:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Found match for regex: ::::::: @Longtrend: I'm not rejecting gender agreement as an argument for adjective status, I just don't see it as conclusive. In French and Spanish, it is not only adjectives and sometimes past participles that show gender agreement, but also determiners (''la femme'', ''la mujer'') and many pronouns (''elle'', ''ella''; ''la tienne'', ''la tuya''); and many animate nouns come in masculine–feminine pairs that resemble gender agreement (''japonais(e)''<sub>ADJ</sub> → ''un(e) Japonais(e)''<sub>N</sub>, ''japonés/esa''<sub>ADJ</sub> → ''un(a) japonés/esa''<sub>N</sub>). And of course, many Slavic, Afro-Asiatic, and other languages have gender agreement even in ''finite'' verb forms, so it's not like it's unheard-of. —]<sub ><small ><i >]</i ></small ></sub > 21:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Found match for regex: # A nearly ] ] ] spoken in Oulek village in ].Found match for regex: # An ] language spoken in ] in the Great Rift Valley southwest of Lake Shala.Found match for regex: # an ] language spoken by about 2500 people in ].Found match for regex: {{proto index header|lang=Afro-Asiatic|count=12}}Found match for regex: Etymologies list the word(s) from which the entry comes from genetically, and should be encoded using {{temp|m}}. If a word comes from a word in another language, the language should be noted, generally best coded using {{temp|der}}. The same format should be used when noting Egyptian words in the etymologies of non-Egyptian entries. When an Egyptian word comes from ], the reconstructed etymon should be linked to with <code>*</code> preceding, to indicate a reconstructed form. Cognates in sister languages are useful: Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew are the usual suspects. In general, when using other languages in an etymology, they should be written in the appropriate script and transliterated, according to the source language’s policies. If you only have access to a transliteration, put it unlinked, and add {{temp|rfscript}}, which marks the entry for attention from someone knowledgeable about the particular script. If you are uncertain of the meaning, spelling, or some other facet of the word, you can use {{temp|attention}} to mark the entry for attention from someone knowledgeable about the language.Found match for regex: Other hypotheses connect it to Proto-Afro-Asiatic {{m|afa-pro|*m-r}} or {{m|afa-pro|*m-l}}, the former on the basis of {{cog|wbj|mariy-amo||wild cat}}, Lamé {{cog|nnn|mēr||serval}} and {{m|nnn|méríán||wild cat}}, {{cog|lme|merian||wild cat, serval}}, Zime-Dari {{cog|lme|mīēr||genette}}, and the latter on the basis of {{cog|mug|ámíl||African civet}}, Bedanga {{cog|sok|melā||cat}}. Either one of these could also be plausibly connected with the ancestor of {{cog|egy|mꜣj||lion}}.Found match for regex: Sometimes considered to be cognate with {{cog|sem-pro|*šbʿ-}}, from a form such as {{inh|egy|afa-pro|*sṗɣ||seven}}.<ref name=Loprieno>{{R:egy:Loprieno|32, 71}}</ref> However, the correspondences are problematic and have been challenged.<ref>Rubin, Aaron D. (2004) “An Outline of Comparative Egypto-Semitic Morphology” in ''Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) studies: in memoriam W. Vycichl'', page 481</ref>Found match for regex: Likely a ] in origin, like many of its Afro-Asiatic parallels.<ref>{{R:egy:EDE|3|193–195}}</ref> Militarev and Stolbova derive it from a supposed {{inh|egy|afa-pro|*ˀVma}}/{{m|afa-pro|*ma(y)||mother}} instead, but also note it may be a nursery word.<ref>Militarev, Alexander and Stolbova, Olga (2007) “” in the Afroasiatic etymology database at StarLing</ref> If not, perhaps cognate with {{cog|sem-pro|*ʾimm-}}.Found match for regex: : Another facet of this is the reference in some Japanese and Korean etymologies to comparison with Turkic and other Altaic languages (for instance, the one added in {{diff|17039337}}). I get the impression that the Altaic theories are more accepted in references for those languages- probably due to the lack of anything better for inherited terms in language isolates such as these. I'm not sure how easy it would be to even find all of the entries with these, let alone to convert them. Personally, I wouldn't mind reference in etymologies (with proper cautions/qualifiers) to a few of the more linguistically-rigorous minority theories, but we have to be selective. The sheer volume of mutually-contradicting speculative theories for isolates such as Basque and Sumerian, and (even some Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages) would make a horrible mess out of quite a few entries. ] (]) 23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Found match for regex: From the root {{ar-root|ق|ي|ء}}. Regarding the initial uvular and final glottal, looks ] for retching, but then parallelly in many languages of the Afro-Asiatic type, if not inherited from {{inh|ar|afa-pro|-}}, encountered in {{cog|gez|ቄአ}}, present {{m|gez|ይቂእ|t=to vomit}}, {{cog|tig|ቀኣ|t=to vomit}}, {{cog|he|קָא|tr=qāʾ}}, present {{m|he|יָקִיא|tr=yāqīʾ|t=to vomit}}, and similarly in {{cog|egy|qꜣꜥ}}, {{m|egy|qjs|t=to vomit}}, {{m|egy|], ]|t=to be putrid; to vomit}}.Found match for regex: # Their ] language.Found match for regex: # ] {{gloss|a language family}}Found match for regex: canonicalName = "Afro-Asiatic",Found match for regex: names = {"Proto-Afro-Asiatic"},Found match for regex: * Gábor Takács, ''Omotic lexicon in its Afro-Asiatic setting III: Omotic *p-''Found match for regex: : Simply put: grammatical gender isn't a universal. It's developed in a few major language families such as ] and ], and has been borrowed into a few other languages, but I would suspect that most language families never had it. It's generally not a good idea to make value judgments based on linguistic characteristics- many of the most virulently sexist cultures throughout history have spoken languages without grammatical gender. ] (]) 14:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Found match for regex: Several linguists have also proposed an areal connection with {{cog|ine-pro|*bʰey-||bee}}, noting the existence of a number of parallels between Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European bee-keeping terminology.Found match for regex: ::: Interchange of y and w in words anciently borrowed to or from Semitic languages isn't limited to this term. As for your other, rather fanciful, speculations: deriving everything from onomatopoeia like that is kind of silly, and quite unnecessary. The word for water goes all the way back to ], which should be explanation enough. As for ]: the dr part isn't the sort of thing that just materializes in words- you haven't explained where that came from. ] (]) 14:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Found match for regex: :::::::: Substrate languages occur world-wide, and can potentially be detected anywhere the historical phonotactics have been worked out. In general, it's not a good idea to make categorical assumptions based on the extremely fragmentary nature of our information on most of the languages of the world. How well do you know Sino-Tibetan or Afro-Asiatic or Niger-Congo or Pama-Nyungan or Uto-Aztecan or Na-Dené or Algic or Northwest Caucasian, or even Turkic? Can you guarantee that none of them will ever have substrates detected that are unidentifiable to family? ] (]) 06:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Found match for regex: : Probably not a cognate, since that would mean inheritance from a common ancestor, and ] is very, very old. The Egyptian is probably a borrowing, and the Hebrew might be as well. ] (]) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Found match for regex: ** No, but it's related. The Semitic languages are one branch of the ] family, but Egyptian, Berber, and various sub-Saharan African languages form other branches. When you consider that Egyptian and Akkadian are among the very earliest-attested languages, but were even back then only distantly related, you get an idea of how far back this family goes. It's by far the oldest widely-accepted family of them all. ] (]) 04:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Found match for regex: # ].Found match for regex: #* Not all bottom-level proto-languages have been well-reconstructed, though. E.g. no consensus exists on what Proto-Afro-Asiatic looked like, and so entries in e.g. Proto-Berber or Proto-Semitic would probably not benefit from mass-tagging with requests for etymology just because a reference to cognates elsewhere in AA has not been found.Found match for regex: :::: Moreover, note that this same problem also comes up within several '''established''' language families. There is no standard reconstruction of Proto-Afro-Asiatic, Proto-Niger-Congo, Proto-Sino-Tibetan, etc. So if we'd need some less mechanical way of formatting etymology appendices dealing with these families anyway, it stands to reason that the same approach, and ''not'' the proto-language approach, should be applied to Nostratic as well.--] (]) 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Found match for regex: Is it possible to verify his Proto-Afro-Asiatic entries , they seem to me like fakes or speculations. His etymology trees don't make sense. Thank you --] 12:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Found match for regex: # {{lb|en|grammar}} A ] ] occurring in ] ]s, associated with the ].Found match for regex: ]Found match for regex: #REDIRECT ]Found match for regex: -->}}<noinclude>]]</noinclude>Found match for regex: # ], ]Found match for regex: Do we have a source or some other proof that this is a loanword from Arabic? It's definitely possible, but ''*(ʔi)sim'' is also reconstructed for Afro-Asiatic. So it might be inherited. ] (]) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Found match for regex: {{ping|Simboyd}} is claiming that a lot of the Georgian numerals come from IE or Afro-Asiatic... Aren't numerals generally one of the most native things in a given language family?Found match for regex: Alexander Militarev, A complete etymology-based hundred wordlist of Semitic updated: Items 75-100, in the Journal of Language Relationhip; entry 94 water, especially the Afro-Asiatic meaning of sap, liquid substanceFound match for regex: "Proto-Afro-Asiatic",Found match for regex: # An ] language of the ] branch, native to Nigeria.Found match for regex: {{also|Afro-Asiaticist}}Found match for regex: {{also|Afro-Asiaticists}}Found match for regex: # {{plural of|en|Afro-Asiaticist}}Found match for regex: # {{lb|nl|chiefly|Afro-Asiatic|_|grammar}} ] ]/]Found match for regex: The etymology for Latin ] says it is Afro-Asiatic and gives Berber, Nubian, and Egyptian as evidence. This is all well and good but Wikipedia says that Nubian is Eastern Sudanic and not Afro-Asiatic. I know nothing about the Nubian languages, so wanted to bring this up for anyone competent to resolve this contradiction. ] (]) 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Found match for regex: : So I can find references to this word, but Beekes and earlier Walde prefer to relate it to a Semitic source, citing {{cog|he|שָׂק|tr=saq||sack}}. These lemmata may well be related, but I don't know whether the Ancient Greek can be directly traced to the Egyptian. I have not the knowledge of Afro-Asiatic to make such a determination. —<span class="Latf" style="font-size: 100%">]]</span> 04:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Found match for regex: :I looked into various references on this when I edited the etymology a bit . As I understand it, the general view is that it comes from Afro-Asiatic, but each proposed etymon has problems. Without outright dropping any of the current content/theories, one might say:Found match for regex: = "afa-pro",Found match for regex: # ]Found match for regex: = "Proto-Afro-Asiatic",Found match for regex: : The stem type (<code>consonant-stem</code>, <code>u-stem</code>, <code>a-stem</code>, or <code>i-stem</code>) of the noun, if known. The stems are derived from Proto-Afro-Asiatic case endings: {{m|afa-pro|*-u}} for nominative, {{m|afa-pro|*-a}} for accusative, and {{m|afa-pro|*-i}} for genitive-possessive.Found match for regex: From {{pre|nl|Afro|Aziatisch}}, possibly a {{calque|nl|en|Afro-Asiatic|nocap=1}}.Found match for regex: # {{plural of|en|Proto-Afro-Asiatic}}Found match for regex: # {{lb|en|grammar}} A ] ] occurring in ] ]s, when the noun does bear a {{l|en|determiner}} {{qualifier|by contrast, in {{l|en|Aramaic}} there is an {{l|en|emphatic state}} or {{l|en|status emphaticus}} as a state of determination by the noun alone}}Found match for regex: # {{lb|en|grammar}} A ] ] occurring in ] ]s, when the noun does not bear a {{l|en|determiner}} – where it would use the {{l|en|determinate state}} –, nor ]s a {{l|en|noun}} – where it would use the {{l|en|construct state}}.Found match for regex: ] is an Afro-Asiatic language with a complex verbal system, some of whose exact forms and categories remain under debate by modern scholars. This page documents the grammatical details of the earlier (Old and Middle) Egyptian verbal system, including some of the differences of opinion on the subject.continuing what appears to be a common theme: Found match for regex: I fear that you are letting your personal range of experience and particular set of opinions get in the way of constructive discussion. The theory of Altaic for one is certainly not unilaterally accepted either, nor are the particulars of the phonetics of Proto-Sino-Tibetan or Proto-Afro-Asiatic, or even Old Chinese—hell, there is still much disagreement about PIE—but in the same sense that settling on a particular phonological model for the time being shouldn't prevent Wiktionary entries for these languages from existing, neither should disagreement about families like Altaic prevent there from being any inclusion of them, as is evident already. If the assumption is that there is something inherently wrong in describing such hypotheses, what is it that is wrong? This is not a matter of whether a scholarly interest exists (it most certainly does) nor a matter of whether there is consensus among any subset of scholars working on the areas in question (there is); instead, you are in danger of now turning it into an issue of neutrality. You did not provide any rationale for the deletions either in prior discussion or retroactively (and I can only guess that your expectation was that I come to you). Other than useless deletionism I do not see any grounds for it. It is not in the same ballpark as modifying or deleting PIE paradigms in favor of alternative models: in this case your choice has been to wipe the (only) information out of existence without hesitation. Regardless, I can only hope that future incidents of this form do not take this path.continuing what appears to be a common theme/reply (2): Found match for regex: That may be so. Sadly very few people, relatively speaking, have any knowledge of or interest in comparative linguistics. But, assuming you are referring exclusively to comparative linguists, I would like to know what counts as “very few”. Not that I am contesting that there are few: I would simply like a genuine reference point on which to base the observation of how many of the ''whole'' agree with the methodology used and conclusions drawn, and which ''whole''. I don't expect that there have been many surveys on comparative linguists' opinions at large; however, as for the number of linguists who have worked on the areas in question, is it any less than for protolanguages such as those of Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian or “Altaic”? In each case the picture is overall the same: two, maybe three, large works which are regarded as the standard, separate and collaborative efforts among a handful of well-known names, and other small contributions by a larger number of lesser-known names. (Of course this description then also leads to the issue of defining “well known”: how much?, and, more importantly, by whom?) Whether the opinions of those who do not study these areas is just as relevant as the opinions of those who do is another question, though perhaps more relevant to the philosophy of ways of knowing. Both you and Rua are evidently very experienced, in the areas relevant to what you have studied, but there seems to be no objective manner in which to discern whose beliefs matter to what—other than the principle that Wikimedia administrators are granted the unquestioned last word!Found match for regex: -->|title=Semitic and Indo-European{{#switch:{{{volume|}}}|1=. The Principal Etymologies. With Observations on Afro-Asiatic|I=. The Principal Etymologies. With Observations on Afro-Asiatic|2=. Comparative Morphology, Syntax and Phonetics|II=. Comparative Morphology, Syntax and Phonetics}}<!--Found match for regex: Apparently it makes sense to have a {{temp|root}} template for roots supposed for any one language and a root template for ancestor languages used in entries of their children languages. Hence I conclude that {{temp|PIE root}} should be generalized and there be made, just to give an example name, a template {{temp|ancestral root}} or {{temp|aroot}}, so that, for instance, one can use for Proto-Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Turkic the same root template as for Proto-Indo-European. So we won’t need any {{temp|AFA root}} or {{temp|TRK root}} to complement {{temp|PIE root}} and this latter will be replaced by {{temp|aroot}}, and we won’t need any {{temp|arc-root}} or {{temp|gez-root}} to complement {{temp|syc-root}} and {{temp|ar-root}} and {{temp|HE root}} and these three latter will be replaced by {{temp|root}}. ] (]) 23:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Found match for regex: ::There are problems with assuming an Akkadian borrowing from Egyptian. Egyptian {{m|egy||ḏ}} generally doesn’t correspond to Semitic ''g'' in loanwords, but only in cognates. The palatalization of Afro-Asiatic ''g'' into Egyptian {{m|egy||ḏ}} in certain environments is usually considered to have happened shortly before the start of the historical era. In historical-era loanwords, Egyptian {{m|egy||ḏ}} is only found rendered by Semitic ''ṣ'' or ''z'', and rarely ''ḏ̣'' or ''ḏ''. If this was a loanword into Akkadian, it would have to be a prehistoric one.Found match for regex: Nomination: I hereby nominate {{user|Vorziblix}} as a local English Wiktionary ]. This user's work ethic, accuracy, and research ability has been exemplary. I have always been impressed with their responsiveness to requests and the speed with which they fulfill them. Vorziblix is often renaming pages to conform with our now-extensive Egyptian policies, and the ability to delete incorrect pages would truly aid this user's indefatigable efforts. I'm hoping this user will expand to become a great Afro-Asiatic editor. —]</sup>]] 06:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Found match for regex: = { code = "afa-pro", name = "Proto-Afro-Asiatic" };Found match for regex: Possibly cognate with {{cog|ar|حَمِيم||hot}}, {{cog|he|חַם|tr=ḥam||hot}}.<ref>{{R:egy:Loprieno|34}}</ref><ref>Takács, Gábor (2000) “Towards the Afro-Asiatic Etymology of Egyptian ''zš'' ‘To Write’” in ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies'', University of London, volume 63, number 2, page 262</ref>Found match for regex: -->}}.<noinclude>]]</noinclude>Found match for regex: The historical pronunciation of Egyptian underwent numerous significant changes over the course of several millennia. The pronunciation of the earlier stages can be reconstructed on the basis of a variety of evidence, such as the pronunciation of Coptic (and comparison between its dialects), transcriptions and loanwords (both to and from other languages), changing orthographic usage and internal evidence, and, most controversially, comparative Afro-Asiatic evidence. Because the work of reconstructing earlier Egyptian phonology only began to gather steam recently, in the second half of the 20th century, and because some aspects of it remain under debate, Egyptologists traditionally use a conventional ‘Egyptological pronunciation’ that is not intended to reflect any actual historical pronunciation for the sake of convenience.Found match for regex: -->|isbn=}}.<noinclude>]]</noinclude>Found match for regex: *]Found match for regex: * {{cite|type=book|editors=Frederick Mario Fales & Giulia Francesca Grassi|title=Camsemud 2007: Proceedings of the 13th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic Linguistics|location=Padua|publisher=SARGON Editrice Libreria|year=2010|pages=387, 389|oclc=1089112000}}Found match for regex: ]Found match for regex: *Yigezu, Moges. 2013. ''Is Aroid Nilo-Saharan or Afro-Asiatic? some evidences from phonological, lexical and morphological reconstuructions''. Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, May 22-24, 2013, Cologne, Germany.Found match for regex: | ] || Awjilah || Libya || Afro-Asiatic, Berber, Eastern, Awjila-SoknaFound match for regex: *Connection to {{der|ar|sem-pro|*bul-|t=relating to birds}}, comparing {{cog|akk|𒅁𒉈𒌈|tr=ib-bil-tum|ts=ibbiltu|t=an unidentified bird}},<ref>{{cite-book|title=Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies: In Memoriam W. Vycichl|editors=Werner Vycichl and Gâabor Takâacs|publisher=Brill|year=2004|chapter=New Etymologies for Common Semitic Animal Names|author=Leonid Kogan|author2=Alexander Militarev|pages=148–149|pagelink=https://books.google.com/books?id=unEB9cNse84C&pg=PA148}}</ref> also {{cog|akk|𒁍𒇷𒇷|tr=bu-li-li|ts=bulīlu|t=a type of crested bird}}, {{cog|tig|ኣምበላ|tr=ʔa-mə-bä-la|ts=ʔambäla|t=weaver birds}} and {{cog|am|ቡላል|tr=bu-la-lə|ts=bullal|t=dove}}, and native {{m|ar|بُلْبُل|tr=|t=nightingale}}. This goes further back to a {{der|ar|afa-pro|*bul-}} form, having cognates in {{cog|cdc}} and {{cog|cus}}, all denoting specifically doves or turtle-doves. All terms are identifications of a bird or bird type, and not convincingly semantically fitting as the adjective used in the Quranic example.Found match for regex: #::: {{re|Allahverdi Verdizade}} One example of not legit reconstruction based on borrowings in Latin and Greek: On {{m|sq|bathë}} they posited a Proto-Albanian ] and even an Indo-European ''*bʰaḱeh₂'' based on Modern {{noncog|el|φακή}}, which as I have explained on its entry derives via {{der|el|grc|φακῆ|t=lentil-dish}} from a contraction of {{der|el|grc|φακέα|t=lentil-dish}}, from {{m|grc|φακός|t=lentil}}. But Kwékwlos servilely created ]. And such is a common thread in Orel’s books, I am referring ] and how assuming one be. Any benefit claimed to arise from Proto-Albanian entries – and it has to be searched with a magnifying glass – is not worth the horror of the terrible mistakes and inacceptable inexactitudes made by that language being free for entries, and the occupation of hunting down and treating these chronic ailments. ] (]) 01:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Found match for regex: ::: Hi again! Thanks for your replies. What I think would be nice is to expand the etymology section of more Hebrew words to show their development from Proto-Semitic (and ideally, trace the Proto-Semitic roots to Proto-Afro-Asiatic). I don't know if that would require separating entries into Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew or not. I assumed it did, which is actually the reason I posted that suggestion. Also, in general, how do you go about adding such reconstructions? Does Wiktionary have any go-to sources for Proto-Semitic etymologies? And more generally, do you have suggestions on how I can contribute more to Wiktionary in general? I'm a complete amateur but I really love seeing detailed etymologies, so I've always wanted to contribute to Wiktionary somehow. Thanks for reading again! :) ] (]) 06:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Found match for regex: * English words like {{m|en|playground|t=place for playing}} or {{m|en|bakery|t=place for baking}} could be called {{m|de||Nomina loci}}, but the term is common mostly in reference to ], especially ], languages.Found match for regex: #* '''2017''', Vit Bubenik, ''Development of Tense/Aspect in Semitic in the Context of Afro-Asiatic Languages'', John Benjamins Publishing Company ({{ISBN|9789027265838}}), page 8:Elapsed time: 12 mins 47.89 secs Ending at Wed May 13 20:51:04 2020