Cushitic Linguistics

The following text is a response sent to an email dispatched to me by the Chairman of the exiled Oromo Parliamentarians who struggle for the Independence and Self-determination of the 5 millennia long Kushitic Ethiopian Nation of the Oromos.
The Hamitic - Kushitic Oromo Nation - due to criminal, inhuman and evil persecution conceived by the colonial powers (France, England and America) and executed by the colonially promoted barbaric and incestuous pseudo-Christian Abyssinians - lost their kingdoms and were engulfed within the Cemetery of Nations Fake Ethiopia, which consists in the world's most tyrannical realm and the location of the world's more abhorrent, more enduring, and more multifaceted genocides. There are more than 45 million Oromos in Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) and Kenya today, despite the notorious and pathetic falsehood propagated by Wikipedia.
The present text enumerates all the major points of historical distortion and falsification carried out and diffused by the colonial academia, mass media, and diplomats, as well as by their local agents and criminal executioners, i.e. the barbaric, incestuous and Anti-Christian tribes of Amhara and Tigray (: the Abyssinians), who usurped the fair name of Ethiopia, which historically denotes the land of North Sudan and the Kushitic Nation that prospered there either in the Antiquity or in the Christian Era. Both, the Oromos and the Arabic-speaking (but not Arab) populations of Northern-Central Sudan are the descendants of Ancient Sudan's (i.e. Ancient Ethiopia's) Kushitic populations.
Representative photographic documentation was herewith added to the text in order to better illustrate the topic.

Refutation of historical forgeries propagated by European colonials and incestuous Abyssinians
First published here:
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/kushitic-oromos-ancestry-in-ethiopia-ancient-sudan-semitic-amharas-tigrays-abyssinians-ancestry-in-yemen/

The phonological behavior of ejectives and implosives as well as their relation with other glottalic sounds pose a number of serious problems to current phonological theories. This paper reveals some of these deficiencies and presents an alternative representation of these segments based on the notion of phonological complexity, as proposed in Sagey (1986) and tentatively applied to glottalized sounds in McCarthy (1989).

In several previous articles, I examined the parallel characteristics of the fake colonial states of Sudan (real Ethiopia) and Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) that have been the end result of the Freemasonic Orientalist fallacies of Pan-Arabism and Ethiopianism.

In this article, I will examine a bogus-historical term that has been constructed by the Freemasonic Orientalist ateliers and academia of France and England to further spread confusion in the wider region, and – more importantly – consolidate the two fallacies in the area, namely the pseudo-doctrines of Pan-Arabism and Ethiopianism: Nubia.
First published in:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/143394

Republished here:
http://www.oromoparliamentarians.org/English/Facts%20about%20Oromo/Ethiopia%20Kushati%20land.htm
and
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006830;p=1

Several misconceptions diffused by colonial historians and totalitarian governments need immediate refutation.

Ancient Ethiopia and its borders

Part of the Abyssinian state propaganda advances the idea that in the Antiquity “the Cushites populated the whole of Eastern Africa” and that “the majority lived in present day Abyssinia”. Even worse, these falsifiers diffuse the idea that at those days “Sudan and Ethiopia were one country” to add that “Abyssinians were just a few Sabaean (Yemenite) refugees who intermingled with the Kushite population”.

This is absolutely wrong, although there are some correct elements in it. In addition, it is said in a very misleading way! Even more, it is self-contradictory.
First published in AfroAticles, American Chronicle, and Buzzle on 21st April 2007
Republished in the present form on 13th January 2010 here: http://betterlesson.com/community/document/329273/american-chronicle-abyssinia-ethiopia-axum-meroe-yemen-history-and-modern-politics-pdf

Paper presented as lecture on various occasions

Kambaata (self-name: Kambaatissata) is a Highland East Cushitic language spoken by several hundred thousand speakers in the Ethiopian highlands, around the Hambarrichcho massif in the South of Ethiopia.
This book constitutes the first part of an in-depth grammatical description of the hitherto hardly explored language. The first chapters of the book address phonological and morphophonological issues and explain the grammatical importance of accent. The central chapter focuses on nominal morphology and deals, among others, with the elaborate Kambaata case system and the complex functions of number morphemes. The features of the large open word class of adjectives are discussed in detail. Furthermore, recent innovations in the personal pronoun systems and the functions of the various demonstratives are examined. The final chapter describes the intricate distribution of the copulas.
Kambaata is used as a medium of instruction in primary schools. The official orthography is Latin-based.

In this introduction, we provide a general overview of a variety of phenomena related to the encoding of the cognitive category of number in natural language, e.g., number-marking, collective nouns, conjunctions, numerals and other quantifiers, as well as classifiers, and show how Slavic data can contribute to our understanding of these phenomena. We also examine the main strands of the study of number in language developed within formal linguistics, linguistic typology, and psycholinguistics. Finally, we introduce the content of this collective monograph and discuss its relevance to current research.

No history of a population is, probably, as ‘mysterious’ as the Roma
(“Gypsy”) people. However, the contemporary mitochondria, DNA,
phylogenetic and population history research confirms the Classical Greek
writers such as Herodotus’ position that Europe is but peopled by people
from East Africa known as Ancient Cushites or Ethiopians or Egyptians.
The Roma are consistently clear—they count themselves to Ancient
Nubian-Africans. This paper hypothesized the Roma People cannot be
different from the Ancient African Cushites, who ruled, lived and civilized
the three oldest continents. Classical as well as contemporary Roma and
Oromo-Cush, as well as Ancient Egypto-Meroitic, linguistic and cultural
lexicons were collected and analyzed in the wider comparative culturalhistorical-
evolutionary perspectives. The findings indicate that there is
significant lexical, grammatical and cultural-historical similarity which
supports the Ancient Cushite origin of the Roma language and people. Key
implications have emerged. The Roma people cannot be different from the
whole Euroasians who populated Europe and Asia moving out of Africa in
the three Millennia preceding the Christian era as well as the first Millennia
of this era. The Roma people populated Euroasia in the same way and
time the rest peopled the two continents moving out of (East-North)
Africa. Europe is as much homeland to them as it is to the rest of their
friends. The whole Indo-European languages must have been the
offshoots of these pioneers of human civilizations. The continuing racism
against the Roma People is but an irrational and crazy existent in the
heart of the ‘Modern’ and ‘Civilized’ Europe.

Despite the long-lasting and diversified cross-linguistic interest in tense/aspect, most grammatical descriptions of Cushitic, Ethio-Semitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic languages spoken at the Horn of Africa do not deal in much detail with the expression of time. In order to develop a better understanding of time concepts in languages spoken at the Horn of Africa, and to gain new insights in typological and areal-linguistic issues related to the expression of time in these languages, the panel “Time in the Languages of the Horn of Africa” was held at the 19th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, which took place from 24–28 August 2015 in Warsaw. The panel presentations had an unintentional bias towards Ethio-Semitic, to which nine of the fourteen presentations were devoted. Four papers were concerned with Cushitic languages, but only one with an Omotic language. Two research topics dominated the presentations: in-depth studies on tense/aspect systems of individual languages, and typological contrastive comparison of specific tense/aspect features in closely related languages. All of the eight contributions in the present collective volume emerge from the panel presentations and the subsequent discussions.

The aim of this paper was to comparatively analyze some
(Proto)Indo-European and Oromo-Cush phonological, lexical and
grammatical items and roots. It was triggered by competing
debates and models on (Proto-)Indo-European ((P-)IE) origin, one
of which is the Ancient Model pointing to Africa. (P-)IE and closest
relatives, Eurasiatic and Anatolian, data was collected from the
literature. Pertinent Oromo corpora and native speaker data were
collected. They were subjected to the Comparative Model analysis.
Quite intriguing results showing significant level of resemblance,
both in form and meaning, and implications emerged.

"This paper is a short sketch of the basic grammatical features of Saho, a little-studied East Cushitic language spoken by ca. 5% of the Eritrean population. The variety that is described here is broadly the central and northern one now used in most of the Saho printed texts.
In the first part of the sketch the sound system of this language is described, together with the orthography that has been introduced in Eritrea for writing it. Each sound is characterized phonetically and by means of some examples.
The ten main parts of speech are depicted in the subsequent sections: verbs, nouns, personal pronouns, possessives, demonstratives, interrogatives, indefinites, numerals, postpositions, and particles. The last group includes interjections, adverbs and conjunctions. It is the same classification that has been used inr Vergari & Vergari’s Basic Saho-English Italian Dictionary, published in Asmara in 2003 and now used in all the Saho elementary schools.
On the basis of an established liunguistic tradition, Saho verbs have been divided into four classes: those that are inflected by means of prefixes and suffixes (class I), those that only have inflectional suffixes (class II), the stative verbs (class III), and the compound verbs (class IV).
The last section deals with how nouns and verbs are formed through derivation and compounding, a topic that has been dealt with only cursorily till now for Saho and its closest linguistic relative, i.e., Afar.
Several publications have appeared in Saho during the recent years both for the Eritrean schools and a wider readership. Together with the linguists’ fieldwork they provide a wide basis for studying and analysing this language and the rich cultural heritage that has been handed down till now by generations of Saho speakers."

This article places English language contacts in a typological and comparative perspective. It begins with a review of the essentials of language contact terminology: concepts such as substrate, superstrate, and the various kinds of adstrate, as well as borrowing, importation, language shift, and interlanguage are defined and illustrated. Two sections describe substratal and superstratal contact influence in the history of English: language shift from Celtic to English and borrowing from Norman French into English. A process of the former kind, substratal language shifting toward English, is further described in a separate section with a recent and continuing parallel: the shifting in the direction of Standard Australian English by speakers of Aboriginal Australian languages, who have thereby created a widely used interlanguage, Aboriginal English. Next, change of language type by language contact is illustrated with word order transformations from VSO to SOV and conversely, and it is argued that English too has undergone its own and unique type change from the Germanic Verb-second/Verb-late type to the SVO type as a consequence of language contact. The final section (before the conclusion) addresses the question of how the non-Indo-European features which Celtic passed on to English arose in the Isles in the first place. The more than a century old theory that they developed on a pre-Indo-European substrate is paralleled by a re-construction of the passing-on of SOV order in three linguistic layers at the Horn of Africa, namely from Nilo-Saharan to (originally VSO) Cushitic and further to (originally VSO) Amharic. The Concluding Remarks emphasize the singular importance of English for the developing general theory of language contact and the promise this theory holds for a better understanding of the history of this language.

(Oromo Studies Association, 2005 Conference Proceedings, Washington D.C.) in: The Journal of Oromo Studies, vol. 14 no 1 (February/March 2007), p. 7 - 34
The volume containing the article is available online:
http://oromostudies.org/OSA-USER-FOLDER/josfiles/JOS%20volume%2014%20Number%201%20(2007).pdf
Slightly edited, the article (under the title "The Kushitic / Meroitic Origins of the Oromo Nation") is also available independently here: 
https://www.academia.edu/24273923/The_Meroitic_Ethiopian_Origins_of_the_Modern_Oromo_Nation_-_By_Prof._Dr._Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis and
https://megalommatis.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-meroitic-ethiopian-origins-of-the-modern-oromo-nation/

Two dictionaries of Semito-Hamitic, one by Orel & Stolbova, and another one by Christopher Ehret, were published at the same time, thus allowing the public, for the first time, to assess their reliability.
The authors disregard the possibility of accidental matches. A simulation of their respective methods measures the amount of possible false positives.

Fake Term "Nubian" – Why?

To clarify that the non-Egyptian antiquities of the Egyptian South and the Sudanese North cannot be called Nubian, I initiated a series of articles, presenting the historical interaction among the Hamitic – Kushitic Egyptians, the Kushitic Ethiopians (ancestors to today´s Arabic-speaking Sudanese, Oromos, Sidamas, and other Eastern African Kushites), and the Medjay – Nubians, who are ancestors to the modern Nubians.

The latter may now well be the quasi-exclusive inhabitants of a vast part of the territory of Upper Egypt (Kemet) and of North Sudan (Kush - Ethiopia), namely south of Luxor to Wadi Halfa and thence further to Debba, but in the Antiquity, their ancestors were only a minority among the Egyptians and the Kushites (Ethiopians) who inhabited the said territory (and the rest of Egypt and North Sudan).

More importantly, the Ancient Nubians never formed a state of their own in the pre-Christian times. So, the royal monuments, temples, palaces, military camps and outposts, administrative buildings and private homes that have been unearthed in the land where today's Nubians live were not built by their ancestors and consequently, they are not their own historical heritage, but mainly the heritage of today's Egyptians, Arabic speaking Sudanese, Oromos, Sidamas and eventually other, minor, Kushitic nations.

Today's Nubians therefore cannot be considered as either the only or the primary heir to either the Egyptian Past or the Kushitic / Ethiopian Antiquity, History, monuments, and Heritage. In other words, the Egyptian temple of Isis at Philae cannot be characterized as a Nubian temple, and the Kushitic / Ethiopian temple of Amun of Napata (in today´s Karima, North Sudan) cannot be labeled "Nubian temple"; the latter is valid for even one more reason, namely that there is no Nubian population living there today as well.

The term "Nubian" cannot be given to the kings of Kerma, Napata and Meroe – the three most important capitals of Pre-Christian Kush / Ethiopia – because these kings were not Nubians but Kushites / Ethiopians. Considering both, the ethnic and the linguistic levels, the Nubians were as different from the Egyptians and the Sudanese Kushites / Ethiopians as the Ancient Greeks from the Ancient Babylonians.

The fake term "Nubian" has been introduced in order to effectively detach the Arabic-speaking Sudanese from the search for their identity, prevent them from properly assessing their tremendous historical heritage, further engulf them into the Pan-Arabist fallacy, and definitely disconnect them from their brethren, namely the tyrannized Oromos, Sidamas, and the other subjugated Kushitic nations. These Kushitic nations have been comprised within the non-Kushitic, non-African, Semitic colonial state of the racist Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians, who are totally unrelated to the Oromos, the Sidamas, and the other subjugated Kushitic nations of Abyssinia. 

For the above reason, the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians are absolutely irrelevant of the historical name of Ethiopia, which belongs only to he Arabic-speaking Sudanese, the Oromos, the Sidamas, and the other subjugated Kushitic nations of Abyssinia. The criminal colonial state of Abyssinia has to be forced - by any means - not to use the fair name of Ethiopia anymore in the future.
First published in AfroArticles, Buzzle and American Chronicle on 24th March 2010
Republished in the portal of the Oromo Parliamentarians:
https://www.oromoparliamentarians.org/English/Facts%20about%20Oromo/Kushatic%20_%20Oromo%20Nation%20Part%20VI.htm

To test the competing theories of the Afrasian homeland, the matrix of pairwise lexical matches between 58 Afrasian languages based on short (50-item) wordlists from The Tower of Babel: The Global Lexicostatistical Database, compiled by G.S. Starostin, A.S. Kassian, and M.A. Zhivlov, was subjected to several multivariate analyses. Rooted and unrooted networks were constructed, and the quasi-spatial model, which had rarely been used in lexicostatistics, was applied. A gradual relaxation of requirements to classification (from a rooted to an unrooted network, and from a hierarchical to a non-hierarchical ordering) reveals a southern cluster consisting of two families-Cushitic and Omotic. Under a more stringent approach there is no such cluster because Omotic proves the earliest branch of Afrasian, strengthening the African homeland theory. However, a comparison with dental, archaeological, and population genetic data tilts the balance somewhat in favor of Alexander Militarev's Natufian scenario. At the next stage, his own materials, based on 100-item lists will be subjected to the same analyses.