User talk:ZipperZackery

Proto-Afro-Asiatic
Hi! I’ve noticed you’ve been adding etymologies to entries that give Proto-Afro-Asiatic reconstructions. First of all, thanks for your effort. The problem is that there is no broadly academically accepted reconstruction of Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Both Ehret’s work and Orel and Stolbova’s have significant problems and often disagree entirely on even basic principles of reconstruction. Since this is the case, Proto-Afro-Asiatic etymologies should never be presented as simple fact; they should always be qualified with phrases such as ‘hypothesized by [whoever] to be...’, and they should always be cited to whichever source actually gives the reconstructed forms in question. The unfortunate truth is that Proto-Afro-Asiatic reconstruction is still in its infancy, and it should be made very explicit that any reconstructions currently available are tentative at best. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, Vorziblix. I’m aware that most Proto-Afroasiatic etymologies are conjectural, but scholars generally agree on some roots with a good deal of certainty. *ʔar-ḳ for example, is reconstructed for Proto-Cushitic, and it is also found in Egyptian with a similar meaning. I think that’s pretty good evidence to assume it’s from Proto-Afroasiatic. But I agree, it’s safer to present it as hypothetical since we can’t confirm for certain, at least as of now. Will keep that in mind. ZipperZackery (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks yourself! I think you may underestimate just how fraught the field is. Most Egyptologists reject the notion that Egyptian ever derived from Proto-Afro-Asiatic, for example. The neuere Komparatistik or Rösslerian school of Egyptian comparison considers  a development of earlier alveolar consonants such as /d/, while the other main school, the traditional school, usually traces  back strictly to voiced back fricatives such as /ʕ/ or /ɣ/. In either case an ancestor such as  for the Egyptian word would be impossible. Orel and Stolbova reconstruct  instead, which seems more plausible from a contemporary Egyptological perspective, yet Ehret reconstructs  with a glottal stop, which most current Egyptologists who do comparative work would disagree with. Rösselerians would disagree with them both and reject any connection with the proposed Cushitic comparanda, since according to their system the sound correspondence does not match up.
 * The trouble is that, for almost any set of hypothesized correspondences between Egyptian and other Afro-Asiatic languages, you can find a contrary set of correspondences with just as much evidence behind it. With the exception of a few pronouns and suffixes, I am not sure there actually any roots that scholars generally agree on with reasonable certainty. This doesn’t mean we can’t list what various scholars have proposed, but, again, we must be very careful to present these as hypothetical (as you say) and note sources as needed. Thanks again! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)