It is because of the slave trade?
Clllam
Æ
Harar didn’t exist. Our Saint Abadir from Hejaz only established it somewhere in the medieval 13th century.
I like to flex my centarian status on 23andme. I do it to irritate @Shimbiris who has 1% Ethiopian other. Hence, the condolences.
That's true. Somalis had greater taboos against them than the dhegocase that would more easily integrate them and their offspring provided the father was dhegocase. While Somalis largely did not and preferred to only assimilate the children of Oromo or Habeshi concubines as Somali.
Most of those outlier Somalis with South East African or Congolese usually got it indirectly through having some recent genetic connection to Cad Cads, Barwanis or Dhegocase that have Bantu or Niger-Congo admixture. Or might be a sheegato or anomaly from the rivine region of Southern Somalia. Interestingly, I have come across some Somalis in the North that have trace amounts of South Asian but an absence of Niger-Congo admixture that you'd normally find in Cad Cads and Barwanis from the South. You'll find random stuff on 23andme.
Last edited:
1. Owl in Somali is guumeys and gumut in Nuer 2. 0 is ban in Nuer which is banaan in somali technically 3. Number 1 in Nuer is kal which is kali in somali. So called “Cushitic” people and so called “Nilotic” people have a common ancestors
Nuer may also have Cushitic loanwords. Not everything has to do with common ancestors from several thousands of years ago. There can be a very simple answer for a lexical parallel which may not even be that old.
Very true, it's just like the Arab and somali example, there are lot of arabic loan words in somali which does not directly correlate to common ancestry. #sorryreerbanihashimNuer may also have Cushitic loanwords. Not everything has to do with common ancestors from several thousands of years ago. There can be a very simple answer for a lexical parallel which may not even be that old.
“Loanword this loanword that” just because different people have the same word does not mean it is a loanword, it means those people have some connection, perhaps genetically or historically. “Cushitic”and “Nilotic” people are genetically similar, so they’re not that far from each otherNuer may also have Cushitic loanwords. Not everything has to do with common ancestors from several thousands of years ago. There can be a very simple answer for a lexical parallel which may not even be that old.
Haplogroups is a scam. It is still evolving and not conclusive. People shouldn't be caught on something, which is not admissible in the court of law.
What is you clan background?Even more then 2-3% I got a whopping 15% when I did my dna test results which actually was very cool to see
5% or less Bantu heritage would be difficult to notice from the phenotype. A white man who is 5% subsaharan african would still look white, the same applied to a somali. I think 20% or more Bantu admixture could be noticable from the phenotype, but anything less than that would still fit in the average Somali phenotype
I'm sure christopher ehret has some work on this, he writes a lot about african language families, especially afro asiatic and nilo saharan
The alchemist
VIP
I don't think we have enough information to assert that our non-Horner Subsaharan ancestors spoke Nilo-Saharan. Another convincing guess is to say the Ancestral East Africans spoke a dead language that may or may not have been related to proto-Nilo-Saharan. Or even more radical, the Ancestral East Africans could have had an ANA-rich component and spoke some dead language related to AA. But hey, why let the imagination stop there? What if they spoke something that was linguistically antecedently equidistant, giving good resolution to place a linguistic relatedness between the two families. Who knows, man?
For example, I speculate that Sumerian, a classified language isolate derived from the nature of pre-agricultural revolution people relic of a hunter-gatherer origin that carried the particular type of speech signature. I think, and as we see with the processes of history and pre-history, we have a strong reason to believe as hunter-gatherers were very genetically differentiated relative to proximity when you compare it to today, there was a linguistic richness in diversity. Today you see the opposite. Homogeneity with proximity and wide distribution of a set of linguistic families.
In theory, the existing classified language families are daughter languages of older and wider linguistically genealogical phylogenetic structures that of which the far majority of branches are dead ends, and it reaches so far back that we have no way of accurately getting a refined sense of orientation like the comparative method can conceptually inform us about to what degree post-agricultural internal branches within a family relate both laterally, representing something like time-depth/divergence, and width, representing the degree of similarity.
Afro Asiatic is then a very successful line that became a wide tree (even going beyond the comparative method in the earliest layers, a valid testament of its age), but in the advent of this lineage, to say that a few related lineages survived is not far-fetched to me. So yes, our ancestors might have spoken an AA-related language, or if the depth of relatedness was too high temporally, we would have registered it as an isolate, a patch, the remnant of a dead structure that AA was a part of.
For example, I speculate that Sumerian, a classified language isolate derived from the nature of pre-agricultural revolution people relic of a hunter-gatherer origin that carried the particular type of speech signature. I think, and as we see with the processes of history and pre-history, we have a strong reason to believe as hunter-gatherers were very genetically differentiated relative to proximity when you compare it to today, there was a linguistic richness in diversity. Today you see the opposite. Homogeneity with proximity and wide distribution of a set of linguistic families.
In theory, the existing classified language families are daughter languages of older and wider linguistically genealogical phylogenetic structures that of which the far majority of branches are dead ends, and it reaches so far back that we have no way of accurately getting a refined sense of orientation like the comparative method can conceptually inform us about to what degree post-agricultural internal branches within a family relate both laterally, representing something like time-depth/divergence, and width, representing the degree of similarity.
Afro Asiatic is then a very successful line that became a wide tree (even going beyond the comparative method in the earliest layers, a valid testament of its age), but in the advent of this lineage, to say that a few related lineages survived is not far-fetched to me. So yes, our ancestors might have spoken an AA-related language, or if the depth of relatedness was too high temporally, we would have registered it as an isolate, a patch, the remnant of a dead structure that AA was a part of.
Apollo
VIP
Nice post,
By the way, I now believe Omotic is NOT Afro-Asiatic, it is in my opinion mostly an Ethiopian hunter-gatherer language family with Cushitic linguistic influence but its base is a language isolate.
Glottolog (a prominent linguistics website) doesn't list them as Afro-Asiatic.
Lol, fun fact: Chadic has more Afro-Asiatic linguistic features than Cushitic. Chadic and Semitic have the most pan-Afro-Asiatic linguistic features.
Apollo
VIP
I never said everybody has it.
I suggest you stop looking to the Shabelle region as they have some sheegatos that claim to hail from mainstream clans and do not always represent the dominant genetic profile of most ethnic Somalis (who are more socially endogamous/insular or from less diverse areas).
Cushites and Nilo-Saharans have seemingly been intermingling since the beginning or almost since the beginning. There is evidence of contact going back about 8,500 years:
There is some reason to believe Waaqism has some roots in contact with Nilo-Saharans:
That's contact from before our ancestors even started appearing in the Horn around 5,000 years ago. Well before. And at a time when North-Cushitic and Proto-Agaw-East-South were just somewhat split. And it's important to notice that the main distinction between Cushites and other Afro-Asiatics is pronounced AEA (Ancestral East African)/ proto-Nilotic ancestry and then the only non-AA element we see any evidence of Cushites making extensive contact with is mostly NS which does it make it quite likely that the people we got all this extra Proto-Nilotic and A-M13 from were actual NS speakers.
My personal thinking is that NS speakers were probably always quite dominant in places like Upper Nubia and western Sudan whereas Cushites were always quite predominant along Lower Nubia and the Red Sea hills though there was most likely a lot of overlap like there has been over the last few thousand years, especially along the Nile. A sort of mirror image of each other:
The Cushitic urheimat basically seems to be Lower Nubia, the Eastern Desert, the Red Sea Hills and northern Eritrea from what I can surmise.
Last edited:
Apollo
VIP
@Shimbiris
What is your take on Omotic being Afro-Asiatic or not? I seriously think those guys are basically a language isolate (Ethiopian hunter-gatherer's language) with a Cushitic substrate.
There is as much linguistic evidence that Omotic is Afro-Asiatic (when excluding all the Cushitic loanwords) as there is evidence that Omotic is Indo-European, LOL.
What is your take on Omotic being Afro-Asiatic or not? I seriously think those guys are basically a language isolate (Ethiopian hunter-gatherer's language) with a Cushitic substrate.
There is as much linguistic evidence that Omotic is Afro-Asiatic (when excluding all the Cushitic loanwords) as there is evidence that Omotic is Indo-European, LOL.
