wikipedia_id stringlengths 2 8 | wikipedia_title stringlengths 1 243 | url stringlengths 44 370 | contents stringlengths 53 2.22k | id int64 0 6.14M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1055700 | Alamannia | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alamannia | Alamannia
Macrianius, Hariobaudes, Vadomarius. Julian the Apostate made peace treaties with these kings in 359.
- Rando 368
- Vithicabius 360–368
- Priarius ?–378
- Gibuld (Gebavult) c. 470
## Dukes under Frankish suzerainty.
- Butilin 539–554
- Leuthari I, before 552–554
- Haming 539–554
- four dukes in the Diocese of Avenches 548–573:
- Lantachar d. 548
- Magnachar 555–565
- Vaefar 565–573
- Theodefrid 573
- Leutfred 570–587, deposed by Childebert II
- Uncilin 587–607
- Gunzo 613
- Chrodobert 630
- Gundoin, Duke of Alsace, "fl". 630s
- Leuthari II 642
- Boniface, Duke of Alsace, until "c". 662
- Adalrich, Duke of Alsace, "c". 662–after 683
- Adalbert, Duke of Alsace, after 683–723
- | 26,900 |
1055700 | Alamannia | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alamannia | Alamannia
Gotfrid until 709
- Willehari 709–712 (in Ortenau)
- Lantfrid 709–730
- Theudebald 709–744
- Liutfrid, Duke of Alsace, 723–after 742
## Carolingians.
The Alemanni were under direct Carolingian rule during 746 (Council of Cannstatt) to 892.
Intermittently, junior members of the Carolingian dynasties were appointed "regulus" or "subregulus" of Alemannia while at other times,
Alemannia was under the direct administration of the Carolingian kings (after 843 kings of East Francia).
- Childeric III (King of the Franks 743–751)
- Carloman 744–747
- Drogo 747–748
- Pepin the Short 748–768 (King of the Franks 751–768)
- Carloman I (King of the Franks 768–771)
- Charlemagne (King of the | 26,901 |
1055700 | Alamannia | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alamannia | Alamannia
Franks 768–814)
- Hnabi Ahalolfing, grandson of Gotfrid, is mentioned as an Alamannic duke during the reign of Charlemagne
- Louis the Pious (King of the Franks 814–840)
- Charles the Bald 829–840 (King of the Franks 840–843, King of West Francia 843–877)
- Louis the German 843–864 (King of Bavaria 817–843, King of East Francia 843–876)
- Charles the Fat 864–880 (King of West Francia 884–887)
- Hugh, Duke of Alsace, 867–885
- Louis the Younger 880–882 (King of Bavaria 880-882)
- Arnulf of Carinthia (King of East Francia 887–899)
- Charles the Fat 882–888 (King of West Francia 884–887)
- Bernard 888–892
- Louis the Child (King of East Francia 889–911)
- Burchard I Hunfriding 909–911
From | 26,902 |
1055700 | Alamannia | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alamannia | Alamannia
the later 8th century, Alemannic dynasties were able to establish themselves once again.
Variously called counts, or margraves, or dukes, these native dynasties during the later years of Carolingian rule managed to establish themselves as de facto independent, establishing the "younger stem duchy" of Alemannia/Swabia by the early 10th century.
The rivalry between the Hunfridings and Ahalolfings was decided in favour of Burchard II Hunfriding in the Battle of Winterthur of 919.
# See also.
- List of Alamannic pagi
- "Lex Alamannorum"
- "Annales Alamannici"
- Early history of Switzerland
- Alemannic German
# References.
- Reuter, Timothy. "Germany in the Early Middle Ages 800–1056". | 26,903 |
1055700 | Alamannia | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alamannia | Alamannia
lemannic dynasties were able to establish themselves once again.
Variously called counts, or margraves, or dukes, these native dynasties during the later years of Carolingian rule managed to establish themselves as de facto independent, establishing the "younger stem duchy" of Alemannia/Swabia by the early 10th century.
The rivalry between the Hunfridings and Ahalolfings was decided in favour of Burchard II Hunfriding in the Battle of Winterthur of 919.
# See also.
- List of Alamannic pagi
- "Lex Alamannorum"
- "Annales Alamannici"
- Early history of Switzerland
- Alemannic German
# References.
- Reuter, Timothy. "Germany in the Early Middle Ages 800–1056". New York: Longman, 1991. | 26,904 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
University of Victoria Students' Society
The University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS) is a student society that represents undergraduate students at the University of Victoria. The student's society was founded in 1921 and incorporated in 1964. It provides services and operates business for students through the Student Union Building (SUB), and historically has advocated for special interests on campus.
# Governance.
## Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors is the decision-making body for the Society and directs all work of the Society. The board is composed of student representatives elected from the student body. The board is made up of:
- Five salaried executives:
- Director | 26,905 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
of Student Affairs,
- Director of Finance & Operations,
- Director of Events,
- Director of Outreach & University Relations, and;
- Director of Campaigns & Community Relations
- A Director of International Student Relations,
- 11 volunteer at-large directors; and,
- Five advocacy group representatives:
- The Native Students' Union,
- UVic Pride Collective,
- The Students of Colour Collective,
- The Society for Students with a Disability, and;
- Third Space Women's Centre Feminist Undergraduate Community Collective (FUCC UVSS)
## Elections.
Board members are elected annually in March and advocacy representatives are nominated by their groups and approved by the board.
Up until | 26,906 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
2009, the elections to the UVSS Board of Directors were run internally by a committee of the Society and staff members. Since that time, the UVSS has changed its by-laws and has given much of its authority to run the elections away to externally hired individuals. Policy for the elections is still determined by the Board of Directors.
# History.
## Founding.
The Students' Society was first incorporated in 1964, just one year after the creation of the University of Victoria (UVic) itself, as the Alma Mater Society of the University of Victoria (AMS). The AMS took its name from student associations like the University of British Columbia and McGill University, to which Victoria College (UVic's | 26,907 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
predecessor) was affiliated. The name was changed in 1989 to make clearer what the organization actually is, a student society.
Students at the newly founded UVic already had their own building and a ready-made students' society, as students at Victoria College (now the home of Camosun College) were organized well before the UVic campus opened. As early as 1957, students at Victoria College began levying a building fee in anticipation of their new home at UVic. Consequently, the Student Union Building (SUB) was one of the first buildings built on campus. The SUB opened in 1963, built with matching funds made available by the provincial government's building fund program. The building itself | 26,908 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
only consisted of the SUB Upper Lounge, the wing where the General Office is now located, and a downstairs section which housed the original Felicita's Pub.
Between 1963 and 1970, membership in the Society was around two thousand students. There were only four buildings on campus and in 1967, when the residence buildings went up, only 300 students lived on campus. The Society at that time was mostly operated by volunteers and a very small staff. However, towards the end of the sixties, the Society began to grow more sophisticated. By the seventies, the cafeteria (previously more of a kiosk) began operating regularly, the Society got a liquor license, and the pub increased its hours. What is | 26,909 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
now Cinecenta got its start with students, working out of an office in the SUB, showing movies using a 16mm projector in the MacLaurin and Elliot buildings.
In 1976 the building expanded, again financed through students. This time, however, the fee referendum to finance the additional 30 000 square feet failed. The Society's operating budget could only finance a smaller addition of 13 000 square feet, which meant that many of the architectural features originally designed for the expansion were lost. The 1976 addition saw the wing where Cinecenta and the Munchie Bar, Medicine Centre Pharmacy, Chiropractor, and On the Fringe are now located. Also the third floor was added as the home of CFUV | 26,910 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
(now located in the SUB's lower level).
## 1980s and 1990s.
The Society’s organizational structure changed significantly in 1989. At this point, the Society began employing its own general manager. In the fall of 1989, the entire structure of the Society was reorganized into the divisional structure, which exists with some modifications today.
The Student Initiatives Project, approved by referendum in 1991, consisted of a significant fee increase to finance the expansion and renovation of the SUB, to build a campus Day Care building, and to finance an Emergency Student Aid Fund. The completion of the expansion and renovation of the SUB in 1996 was another significant marker in the history | 26,911 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
of the Society. The SUB as it is known today is a product of that expansion.
## 2000s.
The growth and change of the 1990s led to a worsening financial situation which reached a crisis point in 2001. The Society had been running deficits every year for about 10 years until the cumulative deficit had reached the hundreds of thousands. As if this unsustainable trend wasn’t enough, the Society rang up an over $400,000 deficit in just one year in 2000–2001. The huge deficit was only discovered during the Society’s annual audit in fall 2001, as the corrupt Business & Operations Manager, Vivek Sharma, had been falsifying statements and stealing from the Society. The Board responded swiftly and decisively | 26,912 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
by pressing charges against the since resigned Sharma, terminating the General Manager, and conducting a forensic audit.
After this crisis unfolded, the Board of Directors embarked on a plan to tighten controls in the SUB’s business operations by such methods as reducing labour costs and food wastage, controlling liquor, and putting locks on freezers and coolers to prevent theft. The Society also secured a half-million dollar loan from UVic against the SUB, which was instrumental in ensuring that the Society was able to meet its financial obligations without interruption. As the 2001–2002 financial year was already half over when the financial crisis was uncovered, the Society could not escape | 26,913 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
another deficit in the hundreds of thousands. However, beginning in 2002–2003 the Society ran surpluses every year until the Society’s debt of approximately $1 million was repaid in full in 2006–2007.
In 2008 the United Steel Workers union representing staff at the UVSS went on strike for a three months, this in combination with a weak economy, and rising costs pushed the Society back into a $350,000 debt by 2009.
## 2010-present.
To address the growing deficit and put the Society back on its feet the 2010-2011 board put a number of fee referenda to members in November 2010 all of which passed. The Capital Fund was reduced and shifted into the Operations Fund, dedicated fees for events and | 26,914 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
elections were established, and a modest increase of 40 cents per full-time student per semester, each semester over a three-year period was also established. Besides this, the 2010-2011 board shifted from a three-person senior management structure to a two-person management structure which further reduced costs for the Society.
In 2010-11, the Board moved from a 4-person executive structure to a 5-person executive structure. This change was passed at a Special General Meeting in January 2010 and was largely done in acknowledgement of the fact that certain executive positions had an inordinate amount of work in comparison to other positions.
Major changes on the political front happened in | 26,915 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
the early twenty-tens as well. After holding a referendum on membership in the Canadian Federation of Students, UVSS members voted to leave the Federation in March 2011 after more than twenty-five years of membership. Following this, the UVSS established the Where's The Funding? campaign in conjunction with a number of other student societies in BC.
# Student groups.
## Clubs.
Clubs are interest groups run by students and administered by the UVSS. There are over 150 student groups on a variety of topics a list of all active clubs can be found on the UVSS Clubs website.
Clubs receive a small amount of funding each semester from a student levy and are governed by clubs policy and Clubs Council.
## | 26,916 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
Course Unions.
Course Unions are department focused student groups run by students from a specific department and administered by the UVSS. There are over 25 Course Unions representing departments across campus, a list of all active clubs can be found on the UVSS Course Union Website. Any student that wants to start a Course Union can do so by talking to the Director of Student Affairs who has an office located in the Students’ Society Centre (SUB B103)
Course Unions receive a small amount of funding each semester from a student levy and are governed by Course Union policy and Course Union council.
## Professional Development Unions (PDUs).
There are four active Professional Development | 26,917 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
Unions at the University of Victoria. Each PDU is run semi-autonomously with funds being raised solely by the students within that department. While each PDU raises its own funds, they are considered under the umbrella of the UVSS for purposes related to the BC University Act.
The following are the PDUs at UVic:
- University of Victoria Engineering Students' Society/a
- Commerce Students' Society
- The Law Students’ Society
- Education Students' Association
## Advocacy Groups.
Advocacy groups are organizations within the UVSS serve to represent certain special interests on campus or within society. Advocacy groups are funded by imposing fees on students that are created through by referendum. | 26,918 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
Each of the groups has voting representation on the UVSS Board of Directors.
The following list details these groups:
- Feminist Underground Collective Community UVSS (FUCC UVSS) (formerly the Third Space) (formerly The Women's Centre)
- Students of Colour Collective (SOCC)
- The Society for Students with a Disability (SSD)
- UVIC Pride
- The Native Students’ Union (NSU)
# Affiliate organizations.
Affiliate organizations are on-campus groups that receive a student levy that has been approved by referendum. All of the affiliate groups act semi-autonomously with their own governing structures.
## The Martlet.
The Martlet is a bi-weekly student newspaper at the University of Victoria | 26,919 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
(UVic) in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. There are over a dozen employees on the payroll, but significant work is done by student volunteers (writing, taking photos, copy editing). The Martlet is funded partially by student fees, and partially by advertisements. The newspaper is distributed freely around the UVic campus and various locations around greater Victoria every second Thursday during the school year, and on a monthly basis in the summer. The paper also maintains a website. The Martlet was a member of the Canadian University Press but ceased membership in 2013.
## CFUV 101.9FM.
CFUV is a campus/community radio station broadcasting on 101.9 FM in British Columbia, Canada. It serves | 26,920 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
the University of Victoria, Greater Victoria and, via cable, Vancouver Island and many areas in the Lower Mainland. It is owned and run by the University of Victoria Student Radio Society. The station offers programs that include a diverse range of musical styles and talk shows on political and cultural issues.
DJs at CFUV are volunteers from the campus and community. Anyone interested in getting involved can stop by their office in SUB B006 Monday to Friday 10:00am – 6:00pm or visit the CFUV CFUV website
## Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group (VIPIRG).
VIPIRG is a non-profit organization dedicated to research, education, advocacy and action in the public interest. It is an ideal | 26,921 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
place for students and Volunteers who wish to work on social justice and environmental issues on campus, or at the campus level.
VIPIRG also hosts an alternative research centre with magazines, videos, books and clippings dealing with a wide range of social justice and environmental issues. More information can be found in their office in SUB B120 or on their website.
## UVic Sustainability Project (UVSP).
UVSP is a student-run organization that strives to work with the campus community to achieve a balance between what is ecologically necessary, socially desirable and economically feasible at UVic. More information can be found from their website or at their office (SUB B118)
## UVic Campus | 26,922 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
Community Gardens.
The Campus Community Garden is a UVSS club that manages the urban agriculture space on campus, with practical support from Facilities Management and the UVic Sustainability Office. The garden is located off of Mckenzie Avenue across from the athletic fields. There are 90 plots at the gardens. Due to the high demand for plots, rentals are restricted to current UVic students, faculty and staff, though volunteers from outside the UVic community are welcome. More information can be found on the website or at their office (SUB B118)
# Services.
## Universal Bus Pass (U-PASS).
The Universal Bus Pass (U-PASS) started in 1999 allows students unlimited travel on the Victoria Regional | 26,923 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
Transit System. The Pass must be renewed each semester at either the University Centre or the Info Booth in the SUB and costs the equivalent of one adult monthly pass.
## Anti-Violence Project (AVP).
The Anti-Violence Project (AVP) is the on-campus sexual assault centre. The support services are confidential and available to anyone who has experienced sexualized violence or knows someone who has.
The staff are trained to provide emotional support and can act as a bridge for anyone seeking counselling, health and/or legal services. They also have a great resource library, and offer educational workshops and awareness events on-campus. People looking for more information can visit their website | 26,924 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
or stop by their office in SUB B027.
## Food Bank.
Rising tuition costs and debt loads signaled an increase in the needs of the membership and in September 2000 the Board of Directors began funding and operating an emergency food bank in the SUB. By 2003 the need increased substantially and the society gained a $0.50 per student levy by referendum for the food bank. It continues to provide much needed food and clothing to members and their families.
The Food bank is located in the basement on the SUB (B017) and is operated mainly by volunteers. All undergraduate students pay a small fee towards keeping it stocked. The Food bank offers students in need the ability to pick up food items once | 26,925 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
per week.
## Health and Dental Plan.
Established by student referendum the UVSS Health and Dental Plan is extended health and dental coverage specifically for students.
All undergraduate students who are registered in at least 3 units of on-campus classes are automatically enrolled in the health plan. Students who are part-time, distance, co-op, or are in the Island Medical Program can opt into the health plan by visiting the Info Booth in the Student Union Building or visiting the Student Care website
Those who already have alternative coverage can opt out of the plan by visiting the Student Care website
## Ombudsperson.
The Ombuds office is an independent, impartial and confidential | 26,926 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
resource for students (current, former, or prospective) and other members of the University community.
The Office provides information and guidance on students’ rights & responsibilities, and UVic regulations & procedures. The Ombudsperson is also an ‘agent for change’, recommending improvements to policies and advocating for fair procedures the office offers workshops and talks on conflict and communication, fairness and related issues.
## Other services.
The UVSS though the Student Union Building also offers free phones, a banner room, a darkroom and study space.
# Controversies.
The UVSS has had no shortage of controversies over the years. Here are a few:
- 2008-2013 Youth Protecting | 26,927 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
Youth (YPY) is a pro-life club at UVic and funded by students. Over the past few years there have been a number of discussions and controversies relating to their activities on-campus. In 2008 and 2009 funding was cut off as a result of the groups posters and activities. In 2010 funding and ratification were lost as a result of continuing controversial activities. In 2010 YPY launched a lawsuit against the UVSS where they were given back their withheld funding and ratification. YPY lost their booking privileges in spring 2012 because of a graphic display held on campus. YPY has since filed a constitutional lawsuit against UVic in relation to a cancelled booking in February 2013. An out-of-court | 26,928 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
settlement was agreed and as of 2017, YPY is a regular student club which participates in standard events such as "clubs day".
- 2010 Fraternities and Sororities were looking to get recognised by UVic and the UVSS. This resulted in one of the largest AGMs in UVSS history where students ultimately decided to not recognize the Fraternities and Sororities. The groups do continue to exist without the University recognition.
- 2009-2012 From 1985 to 2011 the UVSS was member local 44 of the Canadian Federation of Students. In late 2009, a petition was circulated among the membership to demand a referendum on continued membership. Despite having reached the required number of signatures, the CFS | 26,929 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
denied that the petition was valid. The UVSS retained a lawyer on behalf of the membership in order to demand a legal referendum. In March 2011, 70.5% of UVic students voted in a referendum to leave the CFS. The UVSS's membership in CFS-National ended on June 30, 2011. The provincial competent of the CFS, CFS-BC, has since removed the UVSS as a member.
- The UVSS received two F's in the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom's report "The State of Campus Free Speech in 2012".
- 2017 In March 2017 Third Space (the advocacy group for women and transgender students) spent thousands of its student-funded budget to erect a white wall with "How do you challenge white supremacy?" written on it | 26,930 |
1055811 | University of Victoria Students' Society | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University%20of%20Victoria%20Students'%20Society | University of Victoria Students' Society
as since removed the UVSS as a member.
- The UVSS received two F's in the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom's report "The State of Campus Free Speech in 2012".
- 2017 In March 2017 Third Space (the advocacy group for women and transgender students) spent thousands of its student-funded budget to erect a white wall with "How do you challenge white supremacy?" written on it in front of the Student Union Building. There were black markers left for students to write their responses. Overnight the wall was vandalized with white supremacist messages. The wall was removed.
# See also.
- List of British Columbia students' associations
# External links.
- CFUV Radio
- Martlet Newspaper | 26,931 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
Austroasiatic languages
The Austroasiatic languages (), also known as Mon–Khmer (), are a large language family of Mainland Southeast Asia, also scattered throughout parts of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and southern China. There are around 117 million speakers of Austroasiatic languages. Of these languages, only Vietnamese, Khmer and Mon have a long-established recorded history and only Vietnamese and Khmer have official status as modern national languages (in Vietnam and Cambodia, respectively). In Myanmar, the Wa language is the de facto official language of Wa State. Santali is recognized as a regional language of India. The rest of the languages are spoken by minority groups and have no official | 26,932 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
status.
"Ethnologue" identifies 168 Austroasiatic languages. These form thirteen established families (plus perhaps Shompen, which is poorly attested, as a fourteenth), which have traditionally been grouped into two, as Mon–Khmer and Munda. However, one recent classification posits three groups (Munda, Nuclear Mon-Khmer and Khasi–Khmuic), while another has abandoned Mon–Khmer as a taxon altogether, making it synonymous with the larger family.
Austroasiatic languages have a disjunct distribution across Southeast Asia and parts of India, Bangladesh, Nepal and East Asia, separated by regions where other languages are spoken. They appear to be the extant autochthonous languages of Southeast Asia | 26,933 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
(excluding the Andaman Islands), with the neighboring Indo-Aryan, Kra–Dai, Hmong-Mien, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Sino-Tibetan languages being the result of later migrations.
# Etymology.
The name "Austroasiatic" comes from a combination of the Latin words for "South" and "Asia", hence "South Asia".
# Typology.
Regarding word structure, Austroasiatic languages are well known for having an iambic "sesquisyllabic" pattern, with basic nouns and verbs consisting of an initial, unstressed, reduced minor syllable followed by a stressed, full syllable. This reduction of presyllables has led to a variety among modern languages of phonological shapes of the same original Proto-Austroasiatic prefixes, | 26,934 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
such as the causative prefix, ranging from CVC syllables to consonant clusters to single consonants. As for word formation, most Austroasiatic languages have a variety of derivational prefixes, many have infixes, but suffixes are almost completely non-existent in most branches except Munda, and a few specialized exceptions in other Austroasiatic branches.
The Austroasiatic languages are further characterized as having unusually large vowel inventories and employing some sort of register contrast, either between modal (normal) voice and breathy (lax) voice or between modal voice and creaky voice. Languages in the Pearic branch and some in the Vietic branch can have a three- or even four-way | 26,935 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
voicing contrast.
However, some Austroasiatic languages have lost the register contrast by evolving more diphthongs or in a few cases, such as Vietnamese, tonogenesis. Vietnamese has been so heavily influenced by Chinese that its original Austroasiatic phonological quality is obscured and now resembles that of South Chinese languages, whereas Khmer, which had more influence from Sanskrit, has retained a more typically Austroasiatic structure.
# Proto-language.
Much work has been done on the reconstruction of Proto-Mon–Khmer in Harry L. Shorto's "Mon–Khmer Comparative Dictionary". Little work has been done on the Munda languages, which are not well documented. With their demotion from a primary | 26,936 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
branch, Proto-Mon–Khmer becomes synonymous with Proto-Austroasiatic.
Paul Sidwell (2005) reconstructs the consonant inventory of Proto-Mon–Khmer as follows:
This is identical to earlier reconstructions except for . is better preserved in the Katuic languages, which Sidwell has specialized in. Sidwell (2011) suggests that the likely homeland of Austroasiatic is the middle Mekong, in the area of the Bahnaric and Katuic languages (approximately where modern Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia come together), and that the family is not as old as frequently assumed, dating to perhaps 2000 BCE. Peiros (2011) criticized Sidwell's theory heavily and calls it a bunch of contradictions. He show with his analysis | 26,937 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere near the Yangtze. He suggests the Sichuan Basin as likely homeland of proto-Austroasiatic before they migrated to other parts of central and southern China and than into Southeast Asia. He further suggests that the family must be as old as proto-Austronesian and proto-Sinotibetan or even older.
Georg van Driem (2011) proposes that the homeland of Austroasiatic is somewhere in southern China. He suggests that the region around the Pearl River (China) is the likely homeland of the Austroasiatic languages and people. He further suggests, based on genetic studies, that the migration of Kra–Dai people from Taiwan replaced the original Austroasiatic | 26,938 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
language but the effect on the people was only minor. Local Austroasiatic speakers adopted Kra-Dai languages and partially their culture.
The linguists Sagart (2011) and Bellwood (2013) support the theory of an origin of Austroasiatic along the Yangtze river in southern China.
A genetic and linguistic research in 2015 about ancient people in East Asia suggest an origin and homeland of Austroasiatic in today southern China or even further north.
# Internal classification.
Linguists traditionally recognize two primary divisions of Austroasiatic: the Mon–Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, Northeast India and the Nicobar Islands, and the Munda languages of East and Central India and parts of | 26,939 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
Bangladesh, parts of Nepal. However, no evidence for this classification has ever been published.
Each of the families that is written in boldface type below is accepted as a valid clade. By contrast, the relationships "between" these families within Austroasiatic are debated. In addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accepts traditional "Mon–Khmer" as a valid unit. However, little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published, and therefore cannot be evaluated by peer review.
In addition, there are suggestions that additional branches of Austroasiatic might be preserved in substrata of Acehnese in Sumatra (Diffloth), | 26,940 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
the Chamic languages of Vietnam, and the Land Dayak languages of Borneo (Adelaar 1995).
## Diffloth (1974).
Diffloth's widely cited original classification, now abandoned by Diffloth himself, is used in "Encyclopædia Britannica" and—except for the breakup of Southern Mon–Khmer—in "Ethnologue."
- Munda
- North Munda
- Korku
- Kherwarian
- South Munda
- Kharia–Juang
- Koraput Munda
- Mon–Khmer
- Eastern Mon–Khmer
- Khmer (Cambodian)
- Pearic
- Bahnaric
- Katuic
- Vietic (includes Vietnamese)
- Northern Mon–Khmer
- Khasi (Meghalaya, India)
- Palaungic
- Khmuic
- Southern Mon–Khmer
- Mon
- Aslian (Malaya)
- Nicobarese (Nicobar Islands)
## Peiros (2004).
Peiros is a lexicostatistic | 26,941 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
classification, based on percentages of shared vocabulary. This means that languages can appear to be more distantly related than they actually are due to language contact. Indeed, when Sidwell (2009) replicated Peiros's study with languages known well enough to account for loans, he did not find the internal (branching) structure below.
- Nicobarese
- Munda–Khmer
- Munda
- Mon–Khmer
- Khasi
- Nuclear Mon–Khmer
- Mangic (Mang + Palyu) (perhaps in Northern MK)
- Vietic (perhaps in Northern MK)
- Northern Mon–Khmer
- Palaungic
- Khmuic
- Central Mon–Khmer
- Khmer dialects
- Pearic
- Asli-Bahnaric
- Aslian
- Mon–Bahnaric
- Monic
- Katu–Bahnaric
- Katuic
- Bahnaric
## Diffloth | 26,942 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
(2005).
Diffloth compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations, though like other classifications the evidence has not been published. As a schematic, we have:
Or in more detail,
- Munda languages (India)
- Khasi–Khmuic languages (Northern Mon–Khmer)
- Nuclear Mon–Khmer languages
This family tree is consistent with recent studies of migration of Y-Chromosomal haplogroup O2a1-M95. However, the dates obtained from by Zhivotovsky method DNA studies are several times older than that given by linguists. The route map of the people with haplogroup O2a1-M95, speaking this language can be seen in this link. Other geneticists criticise the | 26,943 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
Zhivotovsky method.
## Previously existent branches.
Roger Blench (2009) also proposes that there might have been other primary branches of Austroasiatic that are now extinct, based on substrate evidence in modern-day languages.
- Pre-Chamic languages (the languages of coastal Vietnam prior to the Chamic migrations). Chamic has various Austroasiatic loanwords that cannot be clearly traced to existing Austroasiatic branches (Sidwell 2006, 2007). Larish (1999) also notes that Moklenic languages contain many Austroasiatic loanwords, some of which are similar to the ones found in Chamic.
- Acehnese substratum (Sidwell 2006). Acehnese has many basic words that are of Austroasiatic origin, suggesting | 26,944 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
that either Austronesian speakers have absorbed earlier Austroasiatic residents in northern Sumatra, or that words might have been borrowed from Austroasiatic languages in southern Vietnam – or perhaps a combination of both. Sidwell (2006) argues that Acehnese and Chamic had often borrowed Austroasiatic words independently of each other, while some Austroasiatic words can be traced back to Proto-Aceh-Chamic. Sidwell (2006) accepts that Acehnese and Chamic are related, but that they had separated from each other before Chamic had borrowed most of its Austroasiatic lexicon.
- Bornean substrate languages (Blench 2010). Blench cites Austroasiatic-origin words in modern-day Bornean branches such | 26,945 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
as Land Dayak (Bidayuh, Dayak Bakatiq, etc.), Dusunic (Central Dusun, Visayan, etc.), Kayan, and Kenyah, noting especially resemblances with Aslian. As further evidence for his proposal, Blench also cites ethnographic evidence such as musical instruments in Borneo shared in common with Austroasiatic-speaking groups in mainland Southeast Asia. Adelaar (1995) has also noticed phonological and lexical similarities between Land Dayak and Aslian.
- Lepcha substratum ("Rongic"). Many words of Austroasiatic origin have been noticed in Lepcha, suggesting a Sino-Tibetan superstrate laid over an Austroasiatic substrate. Blench (2013) calls this branch ""Rongic"" based on the Lepcha autonym "Róng".
Other | 26,946 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
languages with proposed Austroasiatic substrata are:
- Jiamao, based on evidence from the register system of Jiamao, a Hlai language (Thurgood 1992). Jiamao is known for its highly aberrant vocabulary in relation to other Hlai languages.
- Kerinci: van Reijn (1974) notes that Kerinci, a Malayic language of central Sumatra, shares many phonological similarities with Austroasiatic languages, such as sesquisyllabic word structure and vowel inventory.
John Peterson (2017) suggests that "pre-Munda" languages may have once dominated the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain, and were then absorbed by Indo-Aryan languages at an early date as Indo-Aryan spread east. Peterson notes that eastern Indo-Aryan languages | 26,947 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
display many morphosyntactic features similar to those of Munda languages, while western Indo-Aryan languages do not.
## Sidwell (2009, 2011).
Paul Sidwell (2009), in a lexicostatistical comparison of 36 languages which are well known enough to exclude loan words, finds little evidence for internal branching, though he did find an area of increased contact between the Bahnaric and Katuic languages, such that languages of all branches apart from the geographically distant Munda and Nicobarese show greater similarity to Bahnaric and Katuic the closer they are to those branches, without any noticeable innovations common to Bahnaric and Katuic.
He therefore takes the conservative view that the | 26,948 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
thirteen branches of Austroasiatic should be treated as equidistant on current evidence. Sidwell & Blench (2011) discuss this proposal in more detail, and note that there is good evidence for a Khasi–Palaungic node, which could also possibly be closely related to Khmuic.
If this would the case, Sidwell & Blench suggest that Khasic may have been an early offshoot of Palaungic that had spread westward. Sidwell & Blench (2011) suggest Shompen as an additional branch, and believe that a Vieto-Katuic connection is worth investigating. In general, however, the family is thought to have diversified too quickly for a deeply nested structure to have developed, since Proto-Austroasiatic speakers are | 26,949 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
believed by Sidwell to have radiated out from the central Mekong river valley relatively quickly.
Subsequently, Sidwell (2015a: 179) proposed that Nicobarese subgroups with Aslian, just as how Khasian and Palaungic subgroup with each other. A subsequent computational phylogenetic analysis of the Austroasiatic language family by Sidwell (2015b) suggests that Austroasiatic branches may have a loosely nested structure rather than a completely rake-like structure, with an east-west division (consisting of Munda, Khasic, Palaungic, and Khmuic forming a western group as opposed to all of the other branches) occurring possibly as early as 7,000 years before present.
Integrating computational phylogenetic | 26,950 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
linguistics with recent archaeological findings, Paul Sidwell (2015c) further expanded his Mekong riverine hypothesis by proposing that Austroasiatic had ultimately expanded into Indochina from the Lingnan area of southern China, with the subsequent Mekong riverine dispersal taking place after the initial arrival of Neolithic farmers from southern China.
Sidwell (2015c) tentatively suggests that Austroasiatic may have begun to split up 5,000 years B.P. during the Neolithic transition era of mainland Southeast Asia, with all the major branches of Austroasiatic formed by 4,000 B.P. Austroasiatic would have had two possible dispersal routes from the western periphery of the Pearl River watershed | 26,951 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
of Lingnan, which would have been either a coastal route down the coast of Vietnam, or downstream through the Mekong River via Yunnan. Both the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic and the archaeological record clearly show that early Austroasiatic speakers around 4,000 B.P. cultivated rice and millet, kept livestock such as dogs, pigs, and chickens, and thrived mostly in estuarine rather than coastal environments.
At 4,500 B.P., this "Neolithic package" suddenly arrived in Indochina from the Lingnan area without cereal grains and displaced the earlier pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer cultures, with grain husks found in northern Indochina by 4,100 B.P. and in southern Indochina by 3,800 | 26,952 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
B.P. However, Sidwell (2015c) found that iron is not reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic, since each Austroasiatic branch has different terms for iron that had been borrowed relatively lately from Tai, Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, and other languages.
During the Iron Age about 2,500 B.P., relatively young Austroasiatic branches in Indochina such as Vietic, Katuic, Pearic, and Khmer were formed, while the more internally diverse Bahnaric branch (dating to about 3,000 B.P.) underwent more extensive internal diversification. By the Iron Age, all of the Austroasiatic branches were more or less in their present-day locations, with most of the diversification within Austroasiatic taking place during | 26,953 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
the Iron Age.
Paul Sidwell (2018) considers the Austroasiatic language family to have rapidly diversified around 4,000 years B.P. during the arrival of rice agriculture in Indochina, but notes that the origin of Proto-Austroasiatic itself is older than that date. The lexicon of Proto-Austroasiatic can be divided into an early and late stratum. The early stratum consists of basic lexicon including body parts, animal names, natural features, and pronouns, while the names of cultural items (agriculture terms and words for cultural artifacts, which are reconstructable in Proto-Austroasiatic) form part of the later stratum.
Roger Blench (2017) suggests that vocabulary related to aquatic subsistence | 26,954 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
strategies (such as boats, waterways, river fauna, and fish capture techniques), can be reconstructed for Proto-Austroasiatic. Blench (2017) finds widespread Austroasiatic roots for 'river, valley', 'boat', 'fish', 'catfish sp.', 'eel', 'prawn', 'shrimp' (Central Austroasiatic), 'crab', 'tortoise', 'turtle', 'otter', 'crocodile', 'heron, fishing bird', and 'fish trap'. Archaeological evidence for the presence of agriculture in northern Indochina (northern Vietnam, Laos, and other nearby areas) dates back to only about 4,000 years B.P. (2,000 B.C.), with agriculture ultimately being introduced from further up to the north in the Yangtze valley where it has been dated to 6,000 B.P.
Hence, this | 26,955 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
points to a relatively late riverine dispersal of Austroasiatic as compared to Sino-Tibetan, whose speakers had a distinct non-riverine culture. In addition to living an aquatic-based lifestyle, early Austroasiatic speakers would have also had access to livestock, crops, and newer types of watercraft. As early Austroasiatic speakers dispersed rapidly via waterways, they would have encountered speakers of older language families who were already settled in the area, such as Sino-Tibetan.
# Writing systems.
Other than Latin-based alphabets, many Austroasiatic languages are written with the Khmer, Thai, Lao, and Burmese alphabets. Vietnamese divergently had an indigenous script based on Chinese | 26,956 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
logographic writing. This has since been supplanted by the Latin alphabet in the 20th century. The following are examples of past-used alphabets or current alphabets of Austroasiatic languages.
- Chữ Nôm
- Khmer alphabet
- Khom script (used for a short period in the early 20th century for indigenous languages in Laos)
- Mon script
- Mundari Bani (Mundari alphabet)
- Ol Chiki alphabet (Santali alphabet)
- Pahawh Hmong was once used to write Khmu, under the name "Pahawh Khmu"
- Sorang Sompeng alphabet (Sora alphabet)
- Tai Le (Palaung, Blang)
- Tai Tham (Blang)
- Warang Citi (Ho alphabet)
# External relations.
## Austric languages.
Austroasiatic is an integral part of the controversial | 26,957 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
Austric hypothesis, which also includes the Austronesian languages, and in some proposals also the Japonic languages.
A 2015 analysis using the Automated Similarity Judgment Program resulted in possible support for the Austro-Tai (but emphatically not Austric) languages. In this analysis, the supposed "Austric" family was divided into two separate, unrelated clades: Austro-Tai and Austroasiatic-Japonic. Note however that ASJP is not widely accepted among historical linguists as an adequate method to establish or evaluate relationships between language families.
## Hmong-Mien.
Several lexical resemblances are found between the Hmong-Mien and Austroasiatic language families (Ratliff 2010), | 26,958 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
some of which had earlier been proposed by Haudricourt (1951). This could imply a relation or early language contact along the Yangtze.
According to Cai (et al. 2011), Hmong–Mien is at least partially related to Austroasiatic but was heavily influenced by Sino-Tibetan, especially Tibeto-Burman languages.
## Indo-Aryan languages.
It is suggested that the Austroasiatic languages have some influence on Indo-Aryan languages including Sanskrit and middle Indo-Aryan languages. Indian linguist Suniti Kumar Chatterji pointed that a specific number of substantives in languages such as Hindi, Punjabi and Bengali were borrowed from Munda languages. Additionally, French linguist Jean Przyluski suggested | 26,959 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
a similarity between the tales from the Austroasiatic realm and the Indian mythological stories of Matsyagandha (from "Mahabharata") and the Nāgas.
# Austroasiatic migrations.
suggests that Haplogroup O1b1, which is common in Austroasiatic people and some other ethnic groups in southern China, and haplogroup O1b2, which is common in today Koreans, Japanese and some Manchu, are the carriers of Yangtze civilization (Baiyue). Another study suggests that the haplogroup O1b1 is the major Austroasiatic paternal lineage.
## Migration into India.
According to Chaubey et al., "Austro-Asiatic speakers in India today are derived from dispersal from Southeast Asia, followed by extensive sex-specific | 26,960 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
admixture with local Indian populations." According to Riccio et al., the Munda people are likely descended from Austroasiatic migrants from Southeast Asia.
According to Zhang et al., Austroasiatic migrations from Southeast Asia into India took place after the last Glacial maximum, circa 10,000 years ago. Arunkumar et al. suggest Austroasiatic migrations from Southeast Asia occurred into Northeast India 5.2 ± 0.6 kya and into East India 4.3 ± 0.2 kya.
# See also.
- Munda languages
# Sources.
- Adams, K. L. (1989). "Systems of numeral classification in the Mon–Khmer, Nicobarese and Aslian subfamilies of Austroasiatic". Canberra, A.C.T., Australia: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of | 26,961 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
- Alves, Mark J. (2015). Morphological functions among Mon-Khmer languages: beyond the basics. In N. J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds.), "Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: the state of the art". Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 531–557.
- Bradley, David (2012). "Languages and Language Families in China", in Rint Sybesma (ed.), "Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics".
- Chakrabarti, Byomkes. (1994). "A Comparative Study of Santali and Bengali".
- Diffloth, Gérard. (2005). "The contribution of linguistic palaeontology and Austro-Asiatic". in Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, eds. "The Peopling of East Asia: Putting | 26,962 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics." 77–80. London: Routledge Curzon.
- Filbeck, D. (1978). "T'in: a historical study". Pacific linguistics, no. 49. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
- Hemeling, K. (1907). "Die Nanking Kuanhua". (German language)
- Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). "The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages". Leiden: Brill.
- Peck, B. M., Comp. (1988). "An Enumerative Bibliography of South Asian Language Dictionaries".
- Peiros, Ilia. 1998. "Comparative Linguistics in Southeast Asia." Pacific Linguistics Series C, No. 142. Canberra: Australian National University.
- Shorto, Harry L. | 26,963 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
edited by Sidwell, Paul, Cooper, Doug and Bauer, Christian (2006). "A Mon–Khmer comparative dictionary". Canberra: Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics.
- Shorto, H. L. "Bibliographies of Mon–Khmer and Tai Linguistics". London oriental bibliographies, v. 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
- Sidwell, Paul. (2005). "Proto-Katuic Phonology and the Sub-grouping of Mon–Khmer Languages". In Sidwell, ed., "SEALSXV: papers from the 15th meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society."
- van Driem, George. (2007). Austroasiatic phylogeny and the Austroasiatic homeland in light of recent population genetic studies. "Mon-Khmer Studies, 37", 1-14.
- Zide, Norman H., and Milton | 26,964 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
E. Barker. (1966) "Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics", The Hague: Mouton (Indo-Iranian monographs, v. 5.).
# Further reading.
- Mann, Noel, Wendy Smith and Eva Ujlakyova. 2009. "Linguistic clusters of Mainland Southeast Asia: an overview of the language families." Chiang Mai: Payap University.
- Sidwell, Paul. 2016. Bibliography of Austroasiatic linguistics and related resources.
# External links.
- Swadesh lists for Austro-Asiatic languages (from Wiktionary's wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists Swadesh-list appendix)
- Austro-Asiatic at the Linguist List MultiTree Project (not functional as of 2014): Genealogical trees attributed to Sebeok 1942, Pinnow 1959, Diffloth 2005, and | 26,965 |
597 | Austroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austroasiatic%20languages | Austroasiatic languages
External links.
- Swadesh lists for Austro-Asiatic languages (from Wiktionary's wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists Swadesh-list appendix)
- Austro-Asiatic at the Linguist List MultiTree Project (not functional as of 2014): Genealogical trees attributed to Sebeok 1942, Pinnow 1959, Diffloth 2005, and Matisoff 2006
- Mon–Khmer.com: Lectures by Paul Sidwell
- Mon–Khmer Languages Project at SEAlang
- Munda Languages Project at SEAlang
- http://projekt.ht.lu.se/rwaai RWAAI (Repository and Workspace for Austroasiatic Intangible Heritage)
- RWAAI Digital Archive
- http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/languages/AA_Ferlus_en.php Michel Ferlus's recordings of Mon-Khmer (Austroasiatic) languages (CNRS) | 26,966 |
1055823 | Tlen.pl | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tlen.pl | Tlen.pl
Tlen.pl
Tlen.pl was an adware licensed Polish instant messaging service. It was fully compatible with the main Polish Gadu-Gadu instant messenger. It was launched in 2001 and discontinued in May 2016.
The communication protocol is based on open-source jabberd code, but it was modified significantly, making it incompatible with generic XMPP clients and servers. Among other features, Tlen.pl allows for voice chats, SMS sending and video conferences. The versions later than 4.0 allow for creation and usage of plugins. Since then more than 130 plugins have been created by the community.
By April 2008 there were more than 1 500 000 registered users and 780 000 real users of Tlen.pl.
Tlen is also | 26,967 |
1055823 | Tlen.pl | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tlen.pl | Tlen.pl
integrated with the o2.pl mail system, which allows users to use mail in three domains: o2.pl; go2.pl and Tlen.pl. It is possible to easily access the mail system from the application. Tlen.pl automatically checks the user's account and if there is any new mail, it displays a notification on their screen.
It is also possible to connect to Tlen.pl from the Tlen.pl homepage with a browser.
Since version 6.0.1.7, Tlen has included the Tlenofon plugin, which enables VoIP functionality for the client. Tlenofon is similar to the Skype service and offers low-priced calls to Poland and other countries.
In the second half of 2009, Tlen 7 Beta was published. There were no longer any advertisements. | 26,968 |
1055823 | Tlen.pl | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tlen.pl | Tlen.pl
a notification on their screen.
It is also possible to connect to Tlen.pl from the Tlen.pl homepage with a browser.
Since version 6.0.1.7, Tlen has included the Tlenofon plugin, which enables VoIP functionality for the client. Tlenofon is similar to the Skype service and offers low-priced calls to Poland and other countries.
In the second half of 2009, Tlen 7 Beta was published. There were no longer any advertisements. The popularity of the service has been declining, however. The software has not been updated since 2011, and the server has been shut down on 10 May 2016.
# See also.
- Comparison of instant messaging clients
# External links.
- TleenX - open-source GTK+ Tlen.pl client | 26,969 |
1055844 | Shaler (crater) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaler%20(crater) | Shaler (crater)
Shaler (crater)
Shaler is a lunar impact crater that lies on the southeast interior edge of the Montes Cordillera mountain ring that surrounds the immense Mare Orientale formation. It is located near the southwest limb of the Moon on the near side, and so is viewed nearly from on edge from the Earth. Just to the northwest of the crater is the slightly smaller crater Wright.
The long, irregular Vallis Bouvard valley begins at the southern rim of Shaler, and winds its way to the south-southeast towards the crater Baade. This is one of several such valleys that radiate away from the southeast edge of the Mare Orientale impact basin, the other two being Vallis Inghirami and Vallis Baade.
Shaler | 26,970 |
1055844 | Shaler (crater) | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaler%20(crater) | Shaler (crater)
rater Wright.
The long, irregular Vallis Bouvard valley begins at the southern rim of Shaler, and winds its way to the south-southeast towards the crater Baade. This is one of several such valleys that radiate away from the southeast edge of the Mare Orientale impact basin, the other two being Vallis Inghirami and Vallis Baade.
Shaler has been affected by its location on the southern edge of the Montes Cordillera, as the floor is rough and irregular, particularly toward the southwest where several small, parallel clefts appear in the surface. The rim is nearly circular, although slightly flattened along the south edge, and the edge remains sharply defined with little appearance of erosion. | 26,971 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Afroasiatic languages
Afroasiatic (Afro-Asiatic), also known as Afrasian and in older sources as Hamito-Semitic (Chamito-Semitic) or Semito-Hamitic, is a large language family of about 300 languages that are spoken predominantly in West Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and parts of the Sahel. Though estimations vary widely, it is believed by scholars to have been spoken as a single language around 12,000 to 18,000 years ago, making it the oldest established language family in the world.
Afroasiatic languages have over 495 million native speakers, the fourth largest number of any language family (after Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan and Niger–Congo). The phylum has six branches: Berber, Chadic, | 26,972 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic and Semitic. By far the most widely spoken Afroasiatic language or dialect continuum is Arabic. A de facto group of distinct language varieties within the Semitic branch, the languages that evolved from Proto-Arabic have around 313 million native speakers, concentrated primarily in West Asia and North Africa.
In addition to languages spoken today, Afroasiatic includes several important ancient languages, such as Ancient Egyptian, which forms a distinct branch of the family, and Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew and Old Aramaic, all of which are from the Semitic branch. The original homeland of the Afroasiatic family, and when the parent language (i.e. Proto-Afroasiatic) was | 26,973 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
spoken, are yet to be agreed upon by historical linguists. Proposed locations include North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Sahara and the Levant.
# Etymology.
During the early 1800s, linguists grouped the Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian languages within a "Hamitic" phylum, in acknowledgement of these languages' genetic relation with each other and with those in the Semitic phylum. The terms "Hamitic" and "Semitic" were etymologically derived from the Book of Genesis, which describes various Biblical tribes descended from Ham and Shem, two sons of Noah. By the 1860s, the main constituent elements within the broader Afroasiatic family had been worked out.
Friedrich Müller introduced | 26,974 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
the name "Hamito-Semitic" for the entire family in his "Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft" (1876). Maurice Delafosse (1914) later coined the term "Afroasiatic" (often now spelled "Afro-Asiatic"). However, it did not come into general use until Joseph Greenberg (1950) formally proposed its adoption. In doing so, Greenberg sought to emphasize the fact that Afroasiatic spanned the continents of both Africa and Asia.
Individual scholars have also called the family "Erythraean" (Tucker 1966) and "Lisramic" (Hodge 1972). In lieu of "Hamito-Semitic", the Russian linguist Igor Diakonoff later suggested the term "Afrasian", meaning "half African, half Asiatic", in reference to the geographic distribution | 26,975 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
of the family's constituent languages.
The term "Hamito-Semitic" remains in use in the academic traditions of some European countries.
# Distribution and branches.
Scholars generally treat the Afroasiatic language family as including the following branches:
- Berber
- Chadic
- Cushitic
- Egyptian
- Omotic
- Semitic
Although there is general agreement on these six families, linguists who study Afroasiatic raise some points of disagreement, in particular:
- The Omotic language branch is the most controversial member of Afroasiatic, because the grammatical formatives to which most linguists have given the greatest weight in classifying languages in the family "are either absent or distinctly | 26,976 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
wobbly" (Hayward 1995). Greenberg (1963) and others considered it a subgroup of Cushitic, whereas others have raised doubts about its being part of Afroasiatic at all (e.g. Theil 2006).
- The Afroasiatic identity of Ongota is also broadly questioned, as is its position within Afroasiatic among those who accept it, due to the "mixed" appearance of the language and a paucity of research and data. Harold Fleming (2006) proposes that Ongota constitutes a separate branch of Afroasiatic. Bonny Sands (2009) finds the proposal by Savà and Tosco (2003) the most convincing: namely that Ongota is an East Cushitic language with a Nilo-Saharan substratum. In other words, it would appear that the Ongota | 26,977 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
people once spoke a Nilo-Saharan language but then shifted to speaking a Cushitic language but retained some characteristics of their earlier Nilo-Saharan language.
- Beja, sometimes listed as a separate branch of Afroasiatic, is more often included in the Cushitic branch, which has a substantial degree of internal diversity.
- Whether the various branches of Cushitic actually form a language family is sometimes questioned, but not their inclusion in Afroasiatic itself.
- There is no consensus on the interrelationships of the five non-Omotic branches of Afroasiatic (see § Subgrouping below). This situation is not unusual, even among long-established language families: scholars also frequently | 26,978 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
disagree on the internal classification of the Indo-European languages, for instance.
- Meroitic has been proposed (Bruce Trigger, 1964, 1977) as an unclassified Afroasiatic language, because it shares the phonotactics characteristic of the family, but there is not enough evidence to secure a classification (Fritz Hintze, 1974, 1979).
# Demographics.
Arabic is the most widely spoken Afroasiatic language with over 300 million native speakers. Other widely spoken Afroasiatic languages include:
- Hausa (Chadic), the dominant language of northern Nigeria and southern Niger, spoken as a first language by over 40 million people and used as a "lingua franca" by another 20 million across West Africa | 26,979 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
and the Sahel.
- Oromo (Cushitic), spoken in Ethiopia and Kenya by around 34 million people
- Amharic (Semitic), spoken in Ethiopia, with over 25 million native speakers in addition to millions of other Ethiopians speaking it as a second language.
- Somali (Cushitic), spoken by 16 million people in Somalia, Djibouti, eastern Ethiopia and northeastern Kenya.
- Afar (Cushitic), spoken by around 7.5 million people in Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Eritrea.
- Shilha (Berber), spoken by around 7 million people in Morocco.
- Tigrinya (Semitic), spoken by around 6.9 million people in Eritrea and Ethiopia
- Kabyle (Berber), spoken by around 5.6 million people in Algeria.
- Hebrew (Semitic), spoken | 26,980 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
by around 9 million people (5 million native first-language speakers and 4 million second-language speakers) in Israel and the Jewish diaspora; also the liturgical language of the Jewish people and the Samaritan people.
- Central Atlas Tamazight (Berber), spoken by around 4.6 million people in Morocco.
- Riffian (Berber), spoken by around 4.2 million people in Morocco.
- Gurage languages (Semitic), a group of languages spoken by more than 2 million people in Ethiopia.
- Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (Semitic), a variety of modern Aramaic that is spoken by more than 500,000 people in the Assyrian diaspora.
# Classification history.
In the 9th century, the Hebrew grammarian Judah ibn Quraysh of Tiaret | 26,981 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
in Algeria was the first to link two branches of Afroasiatic together; he perceived a relationship between Berber and Semitic. He knew of Semitic through his study of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
In the course of the 19th century, Europeans also began suggesting such relationships. In 1844, Theodor Benfey suggested a language family consisting of Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic (calling the latter "Ethiopic"). In the same year, T.N. Newman suggested a relationship between Semitic and Hausa, but this would long remain a topic of dispute and uncertainty.
Friedrich Müller named the traditional Hamito-Semitic family in 1876 in his "Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft" ("Outline of Linguistics"), and | 26,982 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
defined it as consisting of a Semitic group plus a "Hamitic" group containing Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic; he excluded the Chadic group. It was the Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius (1810–1884) who restricted Hamitic to the non-Semitic languages in Africa, which are characterized by a grammatical gender system. This "Hamitic language group" was proposed to unite various, mainly North-African, languages, including the Ancient Egyptian language, the Berber languages, the Cushitic languages, the Beja language, and the Chadic languages. Unlike Müller, Lepsius considered that Hausa and Nama were part of the Hamitic group. These classifications relied in part on non-linguistic anthropological and | 26,983 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
racial arguments. Both authors used the skin-color, mode of subsistence, and other characteristics of native speakers as part of their arguments that particular languages should be grouped together.
In 1912, Carl Meinhof published "Die Sprachen der Hamiten" ("The Languages of the Hamites"), in which he expanded Lepsius's model, adding the Fula, Maasai, Bari, Nandi, Sandawe and Hadza languages to the Hamitic group. Meinhof's model was widely supported into the 1940s. Meinhof's system of classification of the Hamitic languages was based on a belief that "speakers of Hamitic became largely coterminous with cattle herding peoples with essentially Caucasian origins, intrinsically different from | 26,984 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
and superior to the 'Negroes of Africa'." However, in the case of the so-called Nilo-Hamitic languages (a concept he introduced), it was based on the typological feature of gender and a "fallacious theory of language mixture." Meinhof did this although earlier work by scholars such as Lepsius and Johnston had substantiated that the languages which he would later dub "Nilo-Hamitic" were in fact Nilotic languages, with numerous similarities in vocabulary to other Nilotic languages.
Leo Reinisch (1909) had already proposed linking Cushitic and Chadic, while urging their more distant affinity with Egyptian and Semitic. However, his suggestion found little acceptance. Marcel Cohen (1924) rejected | 26,985 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
the idea of a distinct "Hamitic" subgroup, and included Hausa (a Chadic language) in his comparative Hamito-Semitic vocabulary. Finally, Joseph Greenberg's 1950 work led to the widespread rejection of "Hamitic" as a language category by linguists. Greenberg refuted Meinhof's linguistic theories, and rejected the use of racial and social evidence. In dismissing the notion of a separate "Nilo-Hamitic" language category in particular, Greenberg was "returning to a view widely held a half century earlier." He consequently rejoined Meinhof's so-called Nilo-Hamitic languages with their appropriate Nilotic siblings. He also added (and sub-classified) the Chadic languages, and proposed the new name | 26,986 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Afroasiatic for the family. Almost all scholars have accepted this classification as the new and continued consensus.
Greenberg's model was fully developed in his book "The Languages of Africa" (1963), in which he reassigned most of Meinhof's additions to Hamitic to other language families, notably Nilo-Saharan. Following Isaac Schapera and rejecting Meinhof, he classified the Khoekhoe language as a member of the Khoisan languages, a grouping that has since proven inaccurate and excessively motivated on the presence of click sounds. To Khoisan he also added the Tanzanian Hadza and Sandawe, though this view has been discredited as linguists working on these languages consider them to be linguistic | 26,987 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
isolates. Despite this, Greenberg's classification remains a starting point for modern work of many languages spoken in Africa, and the Hamitic category (and its extension to Nilo-Hamitic) has no part in this.
Since the three traditional branches of the Hamitic languages (Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian) have not been shown to form an exclusive (monophyletic) phylogenetic unit of their own, separate from other Afroasiatic languages, linguists no longer use the term in this sense. Each of these branches is instead now regarded as an independent subgroup of the larger Afroasiatic family.
In 1969, Harold Fleming proposed that what had previously been known as Western Cushitic is an independent | 26,988 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
branch of Afroasiatic, suggesting for it the new name Omotic. This proposal and name have met with widespread acceptance.
Several scholars, including Harold Fleming and Robert Hetzron, have since questioned the traditional inclusion of Beja in Cushitic.
"Glottolog" does not accept that the inclusion or even unity of Omotic has been established, nor that of Ongota or the unclassified Kujarge. It therefore splits off the following groups as small families: South Omotic, Mao, Dizoid, Gonga–Gimojan (North Omotic apart from the preceding), Ongota, Kujarge.
## Subgrouping.
Little agreement exists on the subgrouping of the five or six branches of Afroasiatic: Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic, | 26,989 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Cushitic, and Omotic. However, Christopher Ehret (1979), Harold Fleming (1981), and Joseph Greenberg (1981) all agree that the Omotic branch split from the rest first.
Otherwise:
- Paul Newman (1980) groups Berber with Chadic and Egyptian with Semitic, while questioning the inclusion of Omotic in Afroasiatic. Rolf Theil (2006) concurs with the exclusion of Omotic, but does not otherwise address the structure of the family.
- Harold Fleming (1981) divides non-Omotic Afroasiatic, or "Erythraean", into three groups, Cushitic, Semitic, and Chadic-Berber-Egyptian. He later added Semitic and Beja to Chadic-Berber-Egyptian and tentatively proposed Ongota as a new third branch of Erythraean. He thus | 26,990 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
divided Afroasiatic into two major branches, Omotic and Erythraean, with Erythraean consisting of three sub-branches, Cushitic, Chadic-Berber-Egyptian-Semitic-Beja, and Ongota.
- Like Harold Fleming, Christopher Ehret (1995: 490) divides Afroasiatic into two branches, Omotic and Erythrean. He divides Omotic into two branches, North Omotic and South Omotic. He divides Erythrean into Cushitic, comprising Beja, Agaw, and East-South Cushitic, and North Erythrean, comprising Chadic and "Boreafrasian." According to his classification, Boreafrasian consists of Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic.
- Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova (1995) group Berber with Semitic and Chadic with Egyptian. They split up | 26,991 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Cushitic into five or more independent branches of Afroasiatic, viewing Cushitic as a Sprachbund rather than a language family.
- Igor M. Diakonoff (1996) subdivides Afroasiatic in two, grouping Berber, Cushitic, and Semitic together as East-West Afrasian (ESA), and Chadic with Egyptian as North-South Afrasian (NSA). He excludes Omotic from Afroasiatic.
- Lionel Bender (1997) groups Berber, Cushitic, and Semitic together as "Macro-Cushitic". He regards Chadic and Omotic as the branches of Afroasiatic most remote from the others.
- Alexander Militarev (2000), on the basis of lexicostatistics, groups Berber with Chadic and both more distantly with Semitic, as against Cushitic and Omotic. He | 26,992 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
places Ongota in South Omotic.
# Position among the world's languages.
Afroasiatic is one of the four major language families spoken in Africa identified by Joseph Greenberg in his book "The Languages of Africa" (1963). It is one of the few whose speech area is transcontinental, with languages from Afroasiatic's Semitic branch also spoken in the Middle East and Europe.
There are no generally accepted relations between Afroasiatic and any other language family. However, several proposals grouping Afroasiatic with one or more other language families have been made. The best-known of these are the following:
- Hermann Möller (1906) argued for a relation between Semitic and the Indo-European | 26,993 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
languages. This proposal was accepted by a few linguists (e.g. Holger Pedersen and Louis Hjelmslev). (For a fuller account, see Indo-Semitic languages.) However, the theory has little currency today, although most linguists do not deny the existence of grammatical similarities between both families (such as grammatical gender, noun-adjective agreement, three-way number distinction, and vowel alternation as a means of derivation).
- Apparently influenced by Möller (a colleague of his at the University of Copenhagen), Holger Pedersen included Hamito-Semitic (the term replaced by Afroasiatic) in his proposed Nostratic macro-family (cf. Pedersen 1931:336–338), also included the Indo-European, Uralic, | 26,994 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Altaic, Yukaghir languages, and Dravidian languages. This inclusion was retained by subsequent Nostraticists, starting with Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Aharon Dolgopolsky.
- Joseph Greenberg (2000–2002) did not reject a relationship of Afroasiatic to these other languages, but he considered it more distantly related to them than they were to each other, grouping instead these other languages in a separate macro-family, which he called Eurasiatic, and to which he added Chukotian, Gilyak, Korean, Japanese-Ryukyuan, Eskimo–Aleut, and Ainu.
- Most recently, Sergei Starostin's school has accepted Eurasiatic as a subgroup of Nostratic, with Afroasiatic, Dravidian and Kartvelian in Nostratic outside | 26,995 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
of Eurasiatic. The even larger Borean super-family contains Nostratic as well as Dené-Caucasian and Austric.
# Date of Afroasiatic.
The earliest written evidence of an Afroasiatic language is an Ancient Egyptian inscription dated to c. 3400 BC (5,400 years ago). Symbols on Gerzean (Naqada II) pottery resembling Egyptian hieroglyphs date back to c. 4000 BC, suggesting an earlier possible dating. This gives us a minimum date for the age of Afroasiatic. However, Ancient Egyptian is highly divergent from Proto-Afroasiatic (Trombetti 1905: 1–2), and considerable time must have elapsed in between them. Estimates of the date at which the Proto-Afroasiatic language was spoken vary widely. They fall | 26,996 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
within a range between approximately 7,500 BC (9,500 years ago), and approximately 16,000 BC (18,000 years ago). According to Igor M. Diakonoff (1988: 33n), Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 10,000 BC. Christopher Ehret (2002: 35–36) asserts that Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken c. 11,000 BC at the latest, and possibly as early as c. 16,000 BC. These dates are older than those associated with other proto-languages.
# Afroasiatic Urheimat.
The term Afroasiatic Urheimat ("Urheimat" meaning "original homeland" in German) refers to the hypothetical place where Proto-Afroasiatic language speakers lived in a single linguistic community, or complex of communities, before this original language dispersed | 26,997 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
geographically and divided into distinct languages. Afroasiatic languages are today primarily spoken in West Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Sahel. Their distribution seems to have been influenced by the Sahara pump operating over the last 10,000 years.
There is no agreement when or where the original homeland of this language family existed. The main theories of Urheimat are the Levant, the Eastern Sahara, North Africa and the Horn of Africa.
H. Ekkehard Wolff proposes that Proto-Afroasiatic arose in the Fertile Crescent between 15,000 and 9,000 years BC during the Neolithic revolution, then migrated to Africa around 8,000 BC to develop into the Egyptian, Chadic, | 26,998 |
599 | Afroasiatic languages | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroasiatic%20languages | Afroasiatic languages
Omotic, Cushitic and Berber branches.
Majority of male lineages of Chadian-speakers came from Europe less than 8700 years ago.
# Similarities in grammar and syntax.
Widespread (though not universal) features of the Afroasiatic languages include:
- A set of emphatic consonants, variously realized as glottalized, pharyngealized, or implosive.
- VSO typology with SVO tendencies.
- A two-gender system in the singular, with the feminine marked by the sound /t/.
- All Afroasiatic subfamilies show evidence of a causative affix "s".
- Semitic, Berber, Cushitic (including Beja), and Chadic support possessive suffixes.
- Nisba derivation in "-j" (earlier Egyptian) or "-ī" (Semitic)
- Morphology | 26,999 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.