Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2016/October

Abyssinian

Abyssinians or habesha refer to Ethiopians. Eritreans such as the Tigrinyas ,Jebertis and the Tigre are not regarded as Abyssinians. Abyssinian was located in Ethiopia. They share similar cultures ties and are retalted which the infobox clearly states. Eritreans however are not regarded as Abyssninians or habesha, therefore natural to not include them in the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard0048, could you bring sources that defines 'Abyssininan' and 'Habesha' just like how 'Africa continent', 'Indian subcontinent' and 'Latin peoples' is defined because we cannot exclude Morocans, Egyptians and White South Africans just because the term 'African' is associated with black Africans, or exclude Pakistanis from the Indian subcontinent article because Pakistanis don't identify themselves as Indian and are at war with India with nuclear, or exclude Italians (the direct descendants of ancient Latins) because they don't identify themselves as Latin and because the term Latin, Latino & Latina is associated with Spanish Speaking native/Indian Americans (who are completely unrelated racially/genetically with the original Latins/Romance people, who were apart 20,000 kms away until connected by by ship 500 years ago and who didnot contribute anything in building the Roman Empire) ? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the sources we use to define 'Abyssinians' as an ethnolinguistic group of people who speak Ethiopian Semitic languages pls see the source here [1]. I have many sources who used 'Abyssinian' to refer all ethiosemetics and if requested I can bring additional sources. If Bantu speaking and Nilotic speaking people have an article (Nilotic peoples, Bantu peoples) then I see no reason why Ethio-semitic speaking people should not have one. By the way if you see the edit history of the article it has been about ethio-semetic ethno-linguistic people and the article is not developed by just 2 editors, what we just did is change the article title from Habesha to Abyssinian (because many neutral reliable sources apply Habesha on a much wider population other than Abyssinian people) while every thing remained as 100s of editors maintained/developed it for several years. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The usage of term "habesha" in the lead indicates that you are referring to the all of the groups as being "habesha". It would be better to not mention it all in the lead, also show some restriction on how it is being used in the aritcle. Richard0048 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In truth it is unfair to come up with the claim Eritreans don't identify themselves as Habesha. Someone who doesnt know both communities might be convinced with this claim but it is very hard to convince someone from within that community. Speaking honestly the way we use 'Habeshas' is primarily to refer the people who look like us (physically who look like us and whom we share values with, that is all! And it is an alternative to how multiethnic African people (who speak over a 1,000 languages) say we are one 'Africans'). Instead of not mentioning 'Habesha' in the lead I have proposed here [2] to explain the various meanings of Habesha by excluding those meanings that are irrelevant to this article and only include the ones that is relevant. For instance Arabs and Turks use 'Habesha' to refer mixed people leaving in Arabia and to people who are mixed leaving in Africa as they used it to refer their territory inhabited by the muslim cushitic Beja People as Habesh Eyalet/Habeshistan. Since 'Africans' doesn't strictly means Bantu People 'Habesha' also does not have strict definition for us to exclude people. The title is Abyssinian and I think it is fair to say Abyssinian also known us Habesha because many scholars use both terms to refer the Ethio-Semitic language speakers. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I continue to be disappointed at the recent edits and comments on this article, although I genuinely believe that all are working to improve the article (from their viewpoint). I will try to say somethings to help, at least from my viewpoint. First, let's keep the focus of the article off of who is and is not included in the term "Habesha", since the word is used with varying meanings by different authors. The word has done little to clarify this article and has provided much fuel for fruitless argument. Second, let's not confuse today's language names and ethnic names as if they were precise entities in the past. For example, how many Semitic-speaking people became Oromo during the Oromo conquest? Third, let's remember that not all of the published sources are by experts, and also remember that not all the experts agree. For example, Grover Hudson (a respected expert) has argued that Proto-Semitic originally came from Ethiopia -- a scenario that is quite different from what is currently in the article. If there are published experts that disagree on some points, we should not demand that this article follow only one source (the source that we like). Maybe we should consider a different question: should this article be deleted entirely? Peace to all who have called the Horn of Africa "home"! Pete unseth (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with user:Pete unseth that this whole article may be deleted entierly and moved to appropriate articles. Even if you did suggest to not focus a the term it is still incorrect to use and to claim that Eritreans do identify as habesha, it should definitly be removed from the lead. But further down in the article it can be mentioned that there exist various of definitions by various expert and that not all identify as habesha, especially Eritreans. It should be explained in correct context. Pete brought a very good argument when wrote: "let's not confuse today's language names and ethnic names as if they were precise entities in the past., and sources that everybody agrees on and are neutral Richard0048 (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Pete unseth, searching 'Abyssinian' in Google will bring many blogs using the term for politics and nationalism, applying their own defination while not considering what linguists & archologist say. I think we will be doing good for the peace in the Horn if we inform readers on the other definition of ‘Abyssinian’ (based on what relevant experts say), other than what nationalist and politicians tell them every day for their own agenda. - EthiopianHabesha (talk)

Different definitions of "Habesha" and Abyssinian -- let's stop fighting about having just one definition

I had not been following this talk page, but now I see that it needs a calm voice. Maybe I can help. It is a mistake to think that every use of "Abyssinian" has the same definition. Some writers have used it in a more general sense such as all Ethiopians, others have used it in a narrower sense of of certain Semitic groups in Ethiopia, and others have used it in a narrower sense for the Amhara. We cannot impose one definition on what various writers wrote. Also, the same is true of "Habesha"; we cannot assume that Arab geographers who used this term were intending to be precise about exactly which part of the Horn of Africa they referred to, nor to which specific ethnic and linguistic groups they referred. And furthermore, we cannot equate every use of "Habesha" as always having the same exact meaning as every use of "Abyssinian".

Even today, the term Habesha can be legitimately used with differing meanings, according to the context. In discussing what time to meet, people talk about a "Habesha qät'äro" to distinguish timing from European concepts, whether they are Gurage, Kafa, or speakers of a Nilo-Saharan group. In other contexts, people will use the term "Habesha" more precisely to refer to specific ethnic groups in a way that excludes other ethnic groups.

So, though different people want to argue for wider or narrower meanings of "Abyssinian", the argument can never be settled. Now I need time to think of suggestions for improving this contentious article. Peace to all parts of the Horn of Africa! Pete unseth (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, As we discussed there are various derivatives of the wider Habesha (Habshi-Bantu African Indians, Ahbashi-Nilotic people, Habesha/Habesh-Mixed black people, Habesha/Habesh-Abyssinian people). Since the wider Habesha is directed to Abyssinian article I think there should be a little more space in the etymology section which I think does not have to be strictly on the focus of the article but might include other loosely relevant topics tied to the root "Habesh" just to discuss how they are different and similar. No reason to create a new article for wider Habesha just for one paragraph clarification. As for the claim of Synthsis you may see the links found under each references (compiled from Google Books) which will take you directly to the citations I used to add content. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pete unseth, agree Abyssinian and Habesha has different meanings and my opinion is to briefly describe their various uses by various group of people to inform readers on their similarities and difference briefly under the etymology section, while the article continues to focus only on Abyssinian ethno-linguistic group. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi seems to disagrees with this idea and has reverted my last edit. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, you claimed that the root "Habesh" had various etymologies, which is true. I pointed out that many of those etymologies had nothing to do with actual Abyssinians. You then suggested that we should rename the page to Abyssinians in order to avoid this confusion; this has now been done. Therefore, the other non-Habesha etymologies either belong on their respective pages (i.e., the Abyssinian etymology here, the Sidi Bantu etymology on Sidi, the Shanqella etymology on Shanqella...), or on Habesha names and should be clearly labeled as non-Abyssinian etymologies. Soupforone (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a need for more clarity and goodwill here. One suggestion would be to delete this article entirely and let editors create a new article with a carefully defined scope. The present article contains much that is appropriate in articles about Ethiopian history, Amhara people, Horn of Africa, etc. I cannot find any principled reason for a Wikipedia article to adopt a single definition of "Habesha" or "Abyssinian" that is precise about which specific ethnic groups it includes/excludes. So far, the reasons for precise definitions of "Habesha" and "Abyssinian" seem to be based on the opinions of editors and certain ethnic groups, and each side can find authors whose use of these words supports their position. Maybe other editors can suggest a better solution. Let us seek peace, both in the Horn of Africa and on Wikipedia. Pete unseth (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The sticking point is the etymology, specifically. It is messy and confusing. Most such passages are a concise paragraph or two, so it just needs some tightening. A workable trajectory is to simply convey what the actual early narratives/epigraphs indicate rather than uncertain modern interpretations of them. Like the explorer James Bruce's Abyssinia travelogue, which dates from the 18th century [3]. Soupforone (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Pete unseth, use of 'Abyssinian' is mainly restricted to scholars & books. Habesha on the other hand is used extensively in everyday communications in both countries to refer everything that is native/indigenous (to refer people who look like the majority native brown people, shared values etc) which was also used historically that way. When some one says 'yehabesha' everyone assumes it is something that is indigenous which is of not foreign. Anyways, I have no objection with 'Abyssinian' being used to refer ethio-semitic ethno-linguistic people who descended from the Ge'ez language/people, since almost all people already assume Abyssinia to be a geographic area to describe north Ethiopia. The issue I have is 'Habesha people' being directed to 'Abyssinian article' which for that reason I think there should be a little more space in the etymology section explaining the difference and similarities between Habesha & Abyssinian, or may be we could create another article for wider Habesha to explain it's various uses and say Abyssinian is one of it's derivatives. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, you can't insist that "Habesha people" should be renamed to "Abyssinian people" so as to avoid confusion, and then later complain that this is somehow confusing when this has been done. That is moving the goalposts, which is a logical fallacy and contrary to policy. Habesha people redirects here for that reason since Abyssinian people is both an anglicization of it and the WP:COMMONNAME in English for the population. The naming conventions synopsize the actual local naming conventions/etymologies. Soupforone (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, ok then if there is no consensus then it will not be included. I was just trying to give information from the other side so that people get a complete information that is free from politics. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I get that. However, the non-Abyssinian etymologies are still irrelevant here. The correct place is not Al-Habash either (which is on the ancient Abyssinia), but rather on the naming conventions. Soupforone (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the ancient linguistic situation you asserted is erroneous. The Abyssinians weren't originally Semitic speakers that got influenced by Cushitic speakers, but rather the contrary. Linguists recognize various Cushitic substrates in the Ethiopian Semitic languages, meaning that the Abyssinians originally spoke Cushitic languages and later adopted the Ethiopian-Semitic languages [4]. Genetic analysis indicates this too [5]. Soupforone (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, naming conventions? that article is about how peoples names are shared and it will be very irrelvant if we start to talk about people history, race, origins etc there. I beleive what has been in the article should stay or may be moved to Al Habesh article which would be more relevant place for it because Habesh word is not owned by Ethiopians/Eritreans only and Arabs/Turks are also owner of it (there are many sources even claiming it belongs to Arabs intially). As for the languages what many sources agree is that all Ethio-semitic languages developed within Africa. There is no proof of Ge'ez, a 3,000 year old semitic language, being spoken outside Horn region. How Ge'ez developed? Most probably through integration, with high possibility of cushitics going to Arabia and brought it since in history there is no kingdom centered in Arabia that conquered Horn of Africa and also since Punt (who established contact with Egyptian civilization 5,000 years ago) is now confirmed to be located in Horn of Africa. By whatever way it arrived in Africa I think there should be a mention of modern ethio semitics being a result of mixture between Semitic & cushitic languages based on linguists findings, while genetic analysis finds no difference between neighboring people whom all had a 30-50% Caucasoid & 50-70% black African Genetics. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Habesha is an ethnonym/ethnic name and therefore its etymology is appropriate on the local naming conventions. However, in truth, several of those etymologies don't belong there either, as they have little to do with Abyssinians. Anyway, you are quite mistaken about the biogenesis of the local Afro-Asiatic speakers. It is now understood that they actually share most of their ancestry with other Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in the Nile Valley [6] [7]. As regards the Ge'ez language, it may or may not have evolved in the Horn. What is more certain is that the Proto-Semitic language arose in the Arabian peninsula or Near East, and the Semitic languages (including either Ge'ez or its parent language) were later adopted by other ancient Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in Africa. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, but it is titled as ‘Naming conventions in Ethiopia and Eritrea’ which talks about how individual persons in those countries are named & it will be irrelevant if we add content that talks about how group of people/ethnicty are named/referred. I think Al-Habash is relevant to explain all the various meanings/derivatives of the root word ‘habash’ or ‘Al habash’. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia this clarifications are important. I checked abstract & conclusion of your sources & couldn't find what you stated "they relate with Afro-Asiatics in the Nile valley", what page is that? Adopted the language? We could say Sudanese, Egyptians, Moroccans & other Arab league member Africans (Djibouti & Somalia) adopted Arabic or are Arabised since these Africans did not contribute in the development of the Arabic language. However, we cannot say Amharic/Tigrinya/Harari/Gurage/Tigre or even Ge'ez are adopted because there is no proof of these languages being developed/spoken outside Horn/Africa. Linguistics finding is ethiosemetic is not pure semetic like Arabic but a result of Semitic and Cushitic mixing [8][9][10][11] — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The naming conventions page was until recently titled Habesha name, and the etymology of the Habesha ethnic name is itself a naming convention. Therefore, that is where the etymologies belong, provided that they indeed are Abyssinian-related. If not, that should tell you they weren't relevant to begin with. Al-Habash is on the ancient Abyssinia, which likewise has zero to do with Bantus and other non-Abyssinians. As for the biogenesis of the Ethiopian Semitic speakers, it's all explained in the two link-thrus above - scroll down to Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians if for whatever reason you are unable to read the whole thing. Also see stratum if you do not understand what a linguistic substrate is and what this implies for the Ethiopian Semitic languages. The notion of a mixed language was an inaccurate belief that some earlier philologists held. Linguists now know that there are few if any such languages, but instead all languages have varying degrees of influences from other languages, such as in the form of loanwords. The Ethiopian Semitic languages are actual Semitic languages (not Ethiopian-Cushitic "mixed languages"), and they have Cushitic substrates because those are the languages that were originally spoken in their speech area. Soupforone (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, we may ask other editors opinion but that article is for personal naming of Ethiopian citizens (for 80 tribes) and Eritrean citizens (for 9 tribes). Based on the title we could add sections there for tribes who have a different personal naming system and it would be irrelavant if we start sections there to explain on how all these over 83 tribes/ethnicties/languages (group of people) are named. Could you let me know your opinion before I ask other editors opinion as to weather dedicate an article to explain all the meanings/derivatives of Al-Habash (supported with 10s of reliable sources) like the article Aethiopia (which is not dedicated for modern Ethiopia country only). As for the sources you provided it would been better if you can give me the page number because I searched Afro-Asiatic Ethiopians and could not find it there. Also it would have been better if you could bring the definition of 'adopted', 'influenced', 'mixed language', 'stratum' and 'loanword' briefly and letting us know which one you precisely apply on Ethio-semitic languages. Initially, I said Ethiosemtics are greatly influenced by cushitic languages then you opposed this opinion & said they are 'adopted', and I opposed this opinion of yours since 'adopted' is like saying Afro-Arab Sudanese/Chadians adopted Arabic (without changing the language completely, but probably developing dialects & accents). And now you are saying there is no mixed language and that ethiosemetics are actual semitics (are you saying Amharic or Harari came from Arabia as it is like Arabic?). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is an absurd comparison. Of course Aethiopia is not dedicated to the modern Ethiopia because the ancient Aethiopia was instead Nubia. On the other hand, the ancient Al-Habash was only ever located in the Abyssinian highlands and nowhere else. And no, you did not just say that the Ethiopian Semitic languages were merely influenced by Cushitic languages. You claimed that they were "mixed languages", which is not the same thing as a substrate. I also did not write that the "ethiosemetics are actual semitics", but quite clearly that the Ethiopian Semitic languages are actual Semitic languages (not Ethiopian-Cushitic "mixed languages"), and they have Cushitic substrates because those are the languages that were originally spoken in their speech area. Anyway, please see language shift for what the linguistic adoption process actually entails. Soupforone (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Above I have provided sources written by Munro-Hay & Yimene (there are also multiple sources but I don't want to bring them here & bloat this talkpage) who suggested that Al-Habasha has been used as a translation for the Greek word Aethiopia, are you saying these sources are not reliable? If so we can start a process of verifying the sources for their reliability by other Wikipedia editors. See the content I added on 22 Sep which says "...their language being heavily influenced..." which you reverted saying it is erroneous and stated the reason on 22 Sep in this talk page saying: "The Abyssinians weren't originally Semitic speakers that got influenced by Cushitic speakers, but rather the contrary." which shows you beleive in the adoption of semitic language similar to how black Afro-Arabs adopted Arabic. Which side are you? Are you saying Amharic/Harari/Tigrinya are adopted by cushitic people similar to how black Africans adopted Arabic without creating a completely different language? or are you saying they are modified and developed into a completely new language after they are influenced by cushitic languages? or are you saying they are pure Semitic languages? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Munro-Hay asserts that the ancient Greek designation Aethiopia alternately served as either a specific allusion to Nubia/Meroe or as a generic term for Sub-Saharan Africa. He likewise points out that only after the decline in power of Meroe did the Aksumite kings begin to use "Ethiopia" as a designation for their own kingdom. Also note that the exact meaning of ancient Aethiopia is uncertain, as there were Leucaethiopes (White Aethiopians) in the Sahel belt and in some areas further south, just as there are still various ancestral stocks below the Sahara. Anyway, please see the table here for the substrate influences on the Ethiopian Semitic languages. Soupforone (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Went through the link forwarded by you here and it says Substrate for ethiosemitic languages are cushitic languages. Since we are discussing for the improvement of the article tell me how should we put this information in the article with out using technical words like substrate/Superstrate. I want to say semetics (Superstrate) expanded & introduced to cushitic languages like Beja & Agaw and 'Resultant language' (word used in the link you provided) is Tigrinya/Amharic/Argoba/Harari the link even includes Ge'ez as a resultant language with Semitic Superstrate and cushitic substrate. My opinion is it is the Ge'ez/Semitic Axumite people (by the time they expanded they already look like cushitics by physical appearance) who expanded the Semitic Superstrate unlike white Arabic expansion into the very black nilotic Nubians which resulted in present-day Nubians to look different (brown), even though their native language that they still speak is Nilotic language in which all speakers are very black. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Lipinski has a good, easy to understand explanation of the linguistic fruition of the Ethiopian Semitic languages [12]. Soupforone (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok then I also agree with what all Lipinski said, I am going to summerise his conclusion and add it in the article. One thing I disagree with Lipinski is his opinion "conquerer south Arabian semites". Expansion of Superstrate is not always a result of conquerors domination because sometimes conquerors language can be dominated and become a substratum while the conquered peoples language becoming a Superstrate. Best example is the Bantu Swahili language which is the native language of the Swahili Arab people with light skin/Arab complexion who look different from all the other Bantu people. In Swahili the superstrate is the language of the conquered Bantu people while the subtrsatum ('influnce', 'loanwards') is the language of the conquerers. Therfore, since there is no historically recorded kingdom centered in Arabia that conquered Horn of Africa and since the archaeology found in north Ethiopia (Axum Oblisk built based on Pharonic/Nubian culture & also Axumites preferring to adopt 'Ethiopia' than 'Sabean' or 'Habashat' as the official name of their empire) shows minimal influence of South-Arabians in the region and introduction of Semitic supertrate in the Horn could be similar to Swahili i.e. pre Daamat-Axumite cushite conquered South Arabia (like Arabs conquered Bantus) and then the conquered people language becomes Superstrate and the language of the conquerors becomes substratum (like Bantu became Superstrate while the conqueror language Arabic becomes substratum). Anyways that is just to show another probability based on historical-archaeological evidences. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe "conquer south Arabian Semites" in this context means those living in the southern end of the Arabian peninsula, not in the Horn of Africa. The South Arabian Semitic languages include Soqotri and Bathari, not southern dialects of Arabic. Pete unseth (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, please no double standards. My correction of the etymology on Ethiopia indeed wasn't discussed since I was in part correcting your own earlier undiscussed citekill of Yimene et al. Anyway, note that Appiah is not a linguist like Lipinski. Also note that ancient Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions have been found throughout the Horn, from the Abyssinian highlands to northern Somalia to Socotra. So yes, there certainly was an actual Sabaean and Himyarite-speaking presence in the area during antiquity. Soupforone (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen here [13][14] what I added is what is found in Lipnski and Appiah books. If the problem is adding content that is not found in the sources then we can ask other editors opinion (Rfc or 3rd oppinion) but before going into that process I have to know the issue. Unless reasons are stated for the opposition of such kind of statement it is difficult to understand the issues. Can you show me the source which says Appiah is not a linguist but Lipinski is? Appiah source is published by Oxford and wouldnt that make it a better reliable source? Does these Sabean & Himarite inscriptions you mentioned stated the glory of South Arabian kings/rulers on north Ethiopia/Eritrea/Zeila people? Do those inscriptions say Sabeans conquered Agaw, Afar, Zeila and Beja peoples? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, as per WP:CITEKILL, "one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient". Two or more may be used specifically for preventing linkrot, but it's superfluous since the link was/is not dead. Also note that your justification for blanking my Aethiopia etymological corrections was that they were undiscussed/not agreed upon. That same rationale applies to your link formatting; no double standards per WP:BRD. As regards the linguistics, Edward Lipinski is a renowned linguist, whereas Kwame Anthony Appiah is a renowned philosopher. Per WP:MAINSTREAM, actual scholarly experts on the topic take precedence over non-experts. The expert on the Ethiopian Semitic languages is Lipinski, the linguist and orientalist. Given this, I suggest rewording the paragraph according to Lipinski's expertise and presenting a draft of it below for consideration. Regarding the Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions, I don't understand what exactly "the glory... on" is supposed to mean. Anyway, please see here for some of the ancient tablets and rock art areas [15] [16] [17] [18]. Soupforone (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, but what you did is completely change the whole section under Ethiopia article and added a lot of phrases without providing sources in retaliation for the very minor change I made, which I added by providing source & even by providing an inline citation (believing it could be challenged) from which I summerised/concluded. If you had issues with the minor change you could have opened a section in the articles talk page for discussion to solve issues within ourself if not may be by asking other editors opinion instead of making it an excuse to make a major change, to force me to undo my change for a reason only known to you which would be against Wikipedias WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As for this article, the Edward Lipinski biography says "he is a Belgian Biblical scholar and Orientalist", not a linguist, where did you get that information? Kwame Anthony Appiah book went through a respected learning institution/publisher review "Oxford University Press" which makes it more reliable. By the way what I added is also what is found under Lipinski book and instead it owould have been better if you clearly state how it is paraphrased out of context. What I added is found under this link here in 2nd paragraph of etymolgy section, no need to bring the whole paragraph here in talk page. As for glory of Kings, is there any inscription in Sabean describing a south Arabian ruler (from Saba/Himarite) listing territories they have conquered in Horn of Africa (by saying we conquered Afar people, Beja people, Agaw people etc) like Axumite kings written inscriptions telling the territories they ruled extending from Habashat in Yemen to Meroe (Nubia/Kush Ethiopia). — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the fact that you think another editor altering your contribution is automatically "retaliation" is troubling; especially since almost every other editor that has edited on this page has at some point done that (whether myself, Zenkenyan, Otakrem or Fortuna). Wikipedia is a collaborative, open encyclopedia - that's it's very nature. Your initial, undiscussed change to the etymology in Ethiopia also was not minor. You changed the phrase "in English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was also once historically known as Abyssinia, derived from Habesh, an early Arabic form of the Ethiopian Semitic name "Ḥabaśāt" (unvocalized "ḤBŚT")" to read "in English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was also once historically known as Abyssinia, derived from Al-Habasha, whom Arabs used it as a translation for the Greek word Aethiopia". That is a complete alteration in meaning, not a mere formatting change. It's also not supported by the citekilled links, which were to Munro-Hay and Yimene. Yimene actually indicates that "it seems that some Southern Arabian tribes were referred to as "Habashat", and that the term "Abyssinians" is derived from "Habash"" [19], not that "Abyssinia" was derived from the Arabic "Al-Habasha". For his part, Munro-Hay doesn't even mention the anglicization of "Habash", much less of "Al-Habasha" [20]. I tried to fix this by explaining how the Aksumites actually came to adopt the original "Aethiopia" designation of ancient Nubia as per George Hatke [21]. However, you objected on the grounds that it was undiscussed. Therefore, per WP:BRD, the correct thing to do is to discuss the matter for consensus as we are doing now, not re-insert the misinterpretations, citekills and original research. I suggest this wording:

The Greek name Αἰθιοπία (from Αἰθίοψ, Aithiops, 'an Ethiopian') is a compound word, derived from the two Greek words, from [Template:M used with invalid code 'grc'. See documentation.]αἴθω + [Template:M used with invalid code 'grc'. See documentation.]ὤψ (aitho "I burn" + ops "face"). The historian Herodotus used the appellation to denote the parts of Africa below the Sahara that were then known within the Ecumene (inhabitable world).

In Greco-Roman epigraphs, Aethiopia was a specific toponym for ancient Nubia. At least as early as c. 850, the name Aethiopia also occurs in many translations of the Old Testament in allusion to the latter territory. The ancient Hebrew texts identify Nubia instead as Kush. However, in the New Testament, the Greek term Aithiops does occur, referring to a servant of Candace or Kandake, possibly an inhabitant of Meroë in Nubia.

Following the Hellenic and Biblical traditions, the Monumentum Adulitanum, a third century inscription belonging to the Aksumite Empire, indicates that Aksum's then ruler governed an area which was flanked to the west by the territory of Ethiopia and Sasu. The Aksumite King Ezana would eventually conquer Nubia the following century, and the Aksumites thereafter appropriated the designation "Ethiopians" for their own kingdom. In the Ge'ez version of the Ezana inscription, Aἰθιόπoι is equated with the unvocalized Ḥbštm and Ḥbśt (Ḥabashat), and denotes for the first time the highland inhabitants of Aksum. This new demonym would subsequently be rendered as ’ḥbs (’Aḥbāsh) in Sabaic and as Ḥabasha in Arabic.

In the 15th-century Ge'ez Book of Aksum, the name is ascribed to a legendary individual called Ityopp'is. He was an extra-Biblical son of Cush, son of Ham, said to have founded the city of Axum.

In English, and generally outside of Ethiopia, the country was once historically known as Abyssinia. This toponym was derived from the Latinized form of the ancient Habash.

As regards the Ethiopian Semitic linguistics, Lipinski is an established linguist and specialist in the Semitic languages, with his own page on the international LINGUIST directory operated by Indiana University's Department of Linguistics [22]. Appiah doesn't have one because he's a philosopher, not a linguist. This is important per WP:FRINGE-- "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight". Given this, please present a paragraph below for consideration based on the Lipinski's linguistic expertise, as I have done above with the Aethiopia etymology. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, why I said retaliation is that I have seen the history of Ethiopia article which shows you have been making edits in that page for several years but in all this time you did not complain/modified for reasons which you raised just now after I made a very minor change. I have seen that in Eritrea article there is long debate for a very simple question regarding "Does Eritrea belong in Horn or East Africa?". You have completely changed the whole section which has stayed there for many years without 100s of wikipedia editors complaining about it. The solution I think is to take it back as it was for many years, then I will make that minor change, then we discuss about that minor change first in the articles talk page and if no consensus between us then we will ask other editors opinion/intervention. Once that is complete then we will proceed to the other issues which you have just raised while have been ignoring it when you have been making edits in that article for many years. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As for this article, a source published/reviewed by a respected organisation Oxford Univerity press and written by a historian named Henry Louis Gates Jr. and a philosopher named Kwame Anthony Appiah in a book titled Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience[23] who compiled data from specialized experts linguists + genetic study + Historians + Archologists to make their own conclusion is I think more reliable than a professional linguist who is specialized only in the study of languages while not taking genetics/history/archaeology research as a factor for classifying languages. If this is the reason for your opposition of the content I added then we can request other editors opinion. The content I added together with the sources I used to make that summary can be found here in 2nd paragraph of etymolgy section. Instead of me bringing the paragraph here for consideration could you review it there and list out the issues and probably present another alternative phrases or paragraph which you think is more appropriate. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the etymological text that you were reverting to was largely original research and citekill, not a stable version at all. Neither is acceptable whether they have been there 10 years or 10 minutes - WP:BURDEN instructs on such text that one should "not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." Your interpretations of Yimene and Munro-Hay are also inaccurate, as demonstrated above. When an editor makes a WP:BOLD edit like your initial one, it is either accepted or ends up in the discussion cycle. If reverted, the appropriate thing to then do per WP:BRD is discuss the matter on the talk page for consensus, not to try and forcefully reinsert the controversial edit. This is why I stopped insisting on my Aethiopia etymological corrections out of courtesy, and instead brought it here on the talk page for discussion; you are obligated to do the same per policy. WP:BRD indicates this plainly and in bold-- "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."

As regards the Ethiopian Semitic linguistics, the actual wikitext has nothing to do with archaeology (nor are Appiah and Gates archaeologists). Here it is:

Some of the Semitic speaking (Ge'ez) people settled in the northern lowlands (north Eritrea) while others moved and settled as far south as south Shewa; eastward upto Hararghe highlands and westward upto east Damot (east Wellega). In the north the cushitic languages of the Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar peoples appear as the linguistic substratum of the Ge'ez, Tigre and Tigrinya with partial influence on Amharic and Gafat, while substratum of Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages that includes Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were influenced also by Oromo and by Somali with the southern Semitics being influenced by Cushitic much stronger than the northern Semitic languages.

Per WP:RELIABLE, the word "source" has three related meanings on Wikipedia: (1) "the piece of work itself (the article, book)," (2) "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)," and (3) "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". The policy also notes that "any of the three can affect reliability." Pointing out that Appiah and Gates' work was published by Oxford University Press is fine. Nonetheless, the fact remains that these writers are not linguists, let alone experts in the Semitic languages like Lipinski is. Actually, looking at the wikitext above, the paragraph doesn't appear to correspond with what they wrote anyway. Appiah and Gates make no mention of Shewa and Wellega [24], and the rest of the wording seems instead to be drawn from Lipinski [25]. Given this, I suggest the following rewording based on Lipinski-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C.. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the incoming Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands, the liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, whereas the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, this linguistic substratum is more marked toward the lowlands." Soupforone (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, as for Ethiopia article, I returned back the name section as it was before 20 september. I will not make any changes and so should you unless discussed first in the articles talk page so that when we reach a position that we cannot solve it between us then we will invite other editors/admins to review our discussions there which will help them make their judgment. Please know that wikipedia is not owned by two editors and we must present our convincing points supported by reliable sources, list out rules of wikipedia for any removal of content, discuss them first then we will leave it for other editors to solve the issue. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, as for this article first of all I want to respond to issues you raised to the one I proposed. For your question where is Shewa & Wellega, the answer was found in this link here which you deleted previously from the article (for reasons only known to you) which says "Gafat language (which linguists conclude as being ethiosemitic) people were the single largest ethnos in eastern Damot (east welega) and western Shewa", that is the citation I used to write that statment. You keep on deleting important sources (censoring) and you are asking me from where I got those information, are we discussing to improve this article or trying to advocate for political parties and nationalists interest? If that is the issue I could have added the source there. As for your proposal let me list out the issues I have with it, you begin by saying South Arabian epigraphs are found in the region (which were found in coastal areas while no epigrphs found in the interior highlands of Amhara, Shewa, Welega and Hararghe highlands). Note that the south Arabian language Sabean along with Greek and Ge'ez were the official languages of Axum empire besides there are also Ge'ez epigriphs found in Arabia and based on just this evidence are we going to conclude the Ge'ez speaking (which has cushitic substratum namely Beja, Saho-Afar & Agaw based on Lipinski conclusion) were inhabitants of South Arabia? For the question of who expanded semitic languages in the interior highlands it is better to say simply the Semitic speaking (with Ge'ez being most likely but not Sabean speaking people because there is no epigriph indicating Sabean/Himarite kings/rulers conquering African coasts north of Berbera leave alone the interior highlands), if there is any epigraph telling South Arabian rulers conquering African people please let me know. From your proposal I think you are trying to tell as if cushitics adopted semitic language as Zulu man adopted English language (with Zulus having no English ancestry) and you don't want the conclusion of Appiah, Gates and Lipnskis whom used 'settled' and 'mixed'. Does this mean you also don't beleive the lighskinned Bantu speaking Swahili people and Nilotic speaking Nubians having no Arab decent? The other issue I have is Lipinski emphasized highland Sidamo Cushitics subtratum on the southern Ethio-semitic languages namely Amhara, Argoba, Harari & Gurage whom he also said are much more closer to cushitics unlike the northern ones, you left out this conclusion of him and then simply said Oromo and Somali have influences on this languages, are you adding politics + demography factor in lingusitic study? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, reinserting original research is unacceptable on Wikipedia, irrespective of whether or not it existed within an earlier iteration of the Aethipia etymology. I have therefore removed it per WP:OR, but kept the rest of the etymology as it was before your initial edit. Please do not attempt to reinsert the o/r again since all you would be doing is violating that policy and compromising the passage's reliability.

With that noted, you indicated in the Ethiopian Semitic wikitext that "some of the Semitic speaking (Ge'ez) people settled in the northern lowlands (north Eritrea) while others moved and settled as far south as south Shewa; eastward upto Hararghe highlands and westward upto east Damot (east Wellega)". However, what Michael Keiner actually indicates is that "the Gafat at the time were an important, probably even single largest ethnos in eastern Damot and western" -- no mention of any Ge'ez speakers. Elsewhere in that work, David L. Appleyard actually explains that Gafat is a Gunan-Gurage language (not a Ge'ez dialect), and was apparently supplanted in usage by Amharic [26]. You also appear to be confusing the eras. Kleiner is referring to the conquest of Abyssinia during the 1500s, when Ge'ez was limited to liturgical use and the Kingdom of Aksum had long since died out, not to the Aksumite period of the early millenium, when Ge'ez was the state language of Aksum. This is precisely why the citekill policy exists in the first place since it's harder to pick out such textual misinterpretations under a barrage of random urls. Anyway, per WP:CIV, please desist from speculating on what you think I may think (but did not actually indicate) and focus instead on the actual wikitext. Appiah and Gates do not indicate what was claimed, as demonstrated above. They also write that the Tigrinya language belongs to the Semitic family of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic grouping, and that the Tigrinya are descendants of indigenous Cushitic peoples and Semitic peoples from the Arabian Peninsula. This pertains to the Tigrinya specifically, not to Abyssinians as a whole as you have somehow concluded. As to Lipinski, he doesn't assert anything about "mixed" origins for Abyssinians either, linguistic or otherwise. He does, though, apparently allude to Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic as the other Cushitic substrates in the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage languages. The passage should therefore read-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C.. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the incoming Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands, the liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, whereas the Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the lowlands." Soupforone (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, you could have tagged it with 'citation needed', anyways that is fine I will try to find sources and try to restore only those ones I could be able to find that supports them. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not say Gafat is a dialect of Ge’ez. In the wikitext when I say "Semitic speaking people (Ge’ez) moved south and settled" I meant before 15th centuary and even before establishment of Axum. Of all ethiosemitic languages Ge’ez is the oldest, aged over 3,000 year, and most politically dominant in the region than Sabean or other south Arabian languages which is why I say most likely Ge’ez moved south, settled and transformed into Gafat language.

As for your proposal you said "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the Semitic languages were introduced to the region from Yemen at least as early as 1000 B.C", the previous paragraph has already described Ge’ez as being the oldest semetic language to be spoken in the region from 1,000 B.C and no need to repeat in this paragraph again, so exclude this one entirely. As can be seen here Lipinski said "Semites from ancient Yemen settled in Ethiopia" which should also be included together with settlement areas (the one I included North Eritrea-East Damot-South Shewa-Hararghe). As for Lupinski linguistic analysis just add his conclusion as it is without modifying the phrase beginning from "in the north, the cushitic languages....” and ending with ”.......in the north." which I highlighted here — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I already fixed those Aethiopia etymological claims, but you removed the passage under the pretext that it was undiscussed (although I was in fact correcting original research). This means my actual corrections takes precedence, not any hypothetical corrections of that same original research. Anyway, discussion and agreement comes first per WP:BRD.

As to Ge'ez, Lipinski is not referring to it or Gafat when he speaks of the South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries BC. He is talking about ancient Himyarite and Sabaean inscriptions. The oldest Ethiopian Semitic inscription is in Ge'ez, and it's actually only attested to the 4th century AD [27]. Thus, the ancient settlements that Lipinski is alluding to are actually of Sabaean and Himyarite speakers, not of Ethiopian-Semitic speakers. Here is therefore better wording-- "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C. [28]. However, the earliest attestation of an Ethiopian Semitic language, Ge'ez, dates only to the 4th century A.D. [29]. Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The liturgical Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Bedja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south."[30] Soupforone (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, In your last proposal you said "Sabean epigriphs dated 500 BC while Ge'ez epigriph dated 400 AD" which is obviously to give readers the impression that Ge'ez developed in 4th century AD which invalidates linguists hard work to come up with their conclusion that Ge'ez developed between 2,500-3,000 years ago based on these sources here: [31][32][33]. And Why do you need to add 'liturgical' when we are referring the Ge'ez people from historical perspective? Before the fall of Axum there are Ge'ez people as there were Latin people in Roman empire, Copts in Egyptian empire and Nubians in Kush/Ethiopian empire. Before 4th centuary those Ge'ez people were traditional religion followers (building large tombs, Axum Oblisk, for the dead rulling classes just like Nubians & Egyptian pyramids are for) just like the rest of Africans and Arabians. Nubians were also Christians before the arrival of Arabs and we don't say 'liturgical Nubians' when we mention the people for the pre-Islam history. As for linguistic analysis I support the inclusion of what Lipnski concluded as it is without modification. So far I did not get reasons for your opposition on what Lipnski said "Settlement" and the geographic area of settlement compiled from various sources. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the sentence which talks about Sabean epigriphs we should move it to the paragraph found above and say "Some scholars say Sabeans influenced Axumite & pre Axumite states while other Scholars disagree and state that 3,000 years old Ge'ez people didnot behave like Sabeans, were not influenced by them and make up the ethnic, linguistic and cultural stock for Axumite & pre-Axumite kingdoms" i.e. based on wikipedia rule Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, because I have several reliable sources indicating Ge'ez people being minimally or with no influence from pure semitic Sabeans. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Leaving some comments, I think this whole article is confusing and should not even exist. It refers to Abyssnians as habesha, including groups that are not considered habesha or abyssninan's. As noted below, Eritreans like Tigrinya's , Jebert or Tigre is not considered as Abyssinians or Habesha. As user:Pete unseth mentions I favour the deletion of this article since all this content is appropriate in articles about Ethiopian history, Amhara people, Horn of Africa. Also as this user points out the reasons for precise definitions of "Habesha" and "Abyssinian" seem to be based on the opinions of editors, which is indeed true. Regarding the lingustic analysis about the Ge'ez, different sources support different hypothesis, none of them are 100% accurate, its well known that Ethiopic langauages are heavily influenced by cushtic and that it is not spoken in other places than HOA making it languages of HOA only. Ethiopic languages might aswell be excluded from the semitics branch (still being Afroasiatic) since its so different to other semitics as you point out, and be called Ethiopic languages and nothing else, like the chadic languages since they have evolved and these languages are way to much influenced by cushtic languages. Also as EthiopianHabesha mentions there is no epigriph indicating Sabean/Himarite kings/rulers conquering African coasts north of Berbera leave alone the interior highlands. There were also no kingdom centered in Arabia that conquered Horn of Africa. With other words they had no influence of HOA, if mention it needs to be indicate that "Some scholars say Sabeans influenced Axumite etc..", which is a hypothesis etc, followed by sources... Richard0048 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the diagrams and Robertshaw link you pointed me to are speculative; they're not based on actual epigraphs. The earliest written attestation of an Ethiopian-Semitic language actually only dates to the early Common Era. Lipinski himself indicates that Ge'ez is attested from the 2nd century AD, based on epigraphic texts that were found at Aksum in Tigray [34]. One of those diagrams also contradicts your argument that the Aksumites' Ge'ez was the parent language to Gafat and other Ethiopian-Semitic languages since it has only Tigrinya and Tigre branching directly off of Ge'ez [35]. I described Ge'ez as liturgical because the actual phrase is on the substrates in the current Ethiopian-Semitic languages, and Ge'ez today is a liturgical language and has been for several centuries now. Anyway, if "liturgical" is somehow too confusing I'm alright with dropping it.

However, Lipinski obviously can't be repeated verbatim since that would be a WP:COPYVIO. The average reader should be able to understand that the wikiphrase "South Arabian epigraphs dating from the 5th-4th centuries have been found in Ethiopia. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C." means essentially the same thing as Lipinski's assertion that "Semites from ancient Yemen settled in Ethiopia... The South Arabian inscriptions found in Ethiopia, especially those of the 5th-4th centuries B.C., prove the existence of ancient relations between southwest Arabia and Ethiopia, and might indicate that Semitic was brought to Eritrea and Ethiopia from Yemen in the first millenium B.C., if not earlier." This also means that Lipinski's "South Arabian inscriptions" of the 5th-4th centuries BC are indeed likely an allusion to Sabaean and Himyarite epigraphs, and not to Ge'ez inscriptions since he indicates that Ge'ez is only attested from the 2nd century AD. What scholar indicates that "3,000 years old Ge'ez people did not behave like Sabeans, were not influenced by them and make up the ethnic, linguistic and cultural stock for Axumite & pre-Axumite kingdoms", and what exactly does "not behave like" even mean? Note that phrases like "some scholars" are vague WP:WEASEL words, so you'll have to be more precise. Please specify this here so that we may finalize the appropriate wording for the paragraph. Soupforone (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, we are not linguists and what we can do is just present their conclusion. It is based on combination of various factors, not just epigriphs, that they classify and date world languages including Ge'ez. As for Ge'ez being the parent of Ethiopian Semitic languages, note that when I say "Some of the semetic speaking (Ge'ez) moved south ward" it is not written as Ge'ez being the parent 'for sure' but in away 'most likely' because they are the oldest of ethiosemitic languages dated 1,000 BC by many linguists and also many sources suggesting them being the parent. Also see the source here [36] which dates development of Sabean (the oldest of South Arabian languages) by 750 BC, though the same source also dated Ge'ez 600 BC which is not that far away from Sabean age. We can say "some scholars say and other opposes" so long us the statement is attributed to a reliable Source/Scholar, weasel word is when we say "some scholars say" when not supported with source and when those some scholars are unknown. As for Peter's statment saying Ge'ez people didnot behave like Sabeans I beleive he made that conclusion after studying cultures of both people, one example being Axum Oblisk which is based on Pharonic/Nubian culture of building large tombs (While Copts/Egyptians & Nubians/Kushs-Ethiopians constructed pyramids with sands, Ge'ez/Axumite people constructed it with rocks which is widely available to them) for the dead ruling classes while in South Arabia such kind of culture is not present. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, per policy we should indeed rely on expert linguists. Peter Robertshaw is an archaeologist; linguistics are outside his field of expertise [37]. The professional linguists such as Lipinski and Kees Versteegh indicate that the earliest written attestation of Ge'ez (the oldest Ethiopian Semitic language) only dates to the turn of the Common Era [38]. This is based on actual inscriptions in Ge'ez, which were found at Aksum. Manuel Sanz Ledesma is a linguist too, but it's unclear what exactly the ~600 BC date for Ge'ez in his diagram is predicated on. Ostensibly (given the time period), he seems to be basing this on the establishment of the pre-Aksumite kingdom of D'mt. However, epigraphs that have been found at this kingdom's capital, Yeha in Tigray, are in Sabaean rather than in Ge'ez [39]. Also, if by "not behave like" what Robertshaw actually means is that the Aksumites used different architectural techniques than the Sabaeans and Himyarites, then this is what we should indicate. Soupforone (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, I combined your proposal with mine, see below:

Based on epigraphs found in Ethiopia which was written 2,400 -2,500 years ago some scholars suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen before 3,000 years ago. Ge'ez language, developed by 1,000 BC is the oldest of Semitic languages to be spoken in the region and is beleived to be from which Ethiopian Semitic languages descended from. Some of these semites settled in the northern lowlands (north Eritrea) while others moved and settled as far south as south Shewa; eastward upto Hararghe highlands and westward upto east Damot (east Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the north the cushitic languages of the Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar peoples appear as the linguistic substratum of the Ge'ez, Tigre and Tigrinya with partial influence on Amharic and Gafat, while substratum of Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages that includes Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were influenced also by Oromo and by Somali with the southern Semitics being influenced by Cushitic much stronger than the northern Semitic languages.

If you need sources for any you disagree with let me know — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides the grammar, there are two problems with the wording above. The phrase asserting that "Ge'ez language, developed by 1,000 BC is the oldest of Semitic languages to be spoken in the region and is beleived to be from which Ethiopian Semitic languages descended from" is inaccurate. As explained, the oldest Semitic language to be spoken in the region is actually Sabaean, which was used in the kingdom of D'mt. Ge'ez, the oldest Ethiopian Semitic language, is only attested from the early Common Era onwards, during the ensuing Aksumite period. Also, Lipinski does not indicate that Amharic, Argoba, Harari and Gurage are southern Semitics. He's talking about languages here, not populations (hence, Amharic instead of Amhara). Given that, this phrasing would work better-- "Ancient inscriptions in Sabaean have been discovered at Yeha in the northern Tigray region, which served as the capital of the pre-Aksumite Kingdom of D'mt. This suggests that the first Semitic languages may have been introduced to the region by Semites from Yemen as early as 1000 B.C.. However, the earliest attestation of an Ethiopian Semitic language, Ge'ez, dates only to the 2nd century A.D., during the ensuing Kingdom of Aksum.[40] By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega).[41] Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south."[42] Soupforone (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, I have issues with the impression given as "Ge'ez developed by 2nd centuary AD". When I said Ge'ez is the oldest to be spoken in the region my claim is based on Peters conclusion saying "by 1st millenium BC Ge'ez speaking people were already leaving in this region". When you say inaccurate could you be precise, I mean is it the source inacurate or my summary? and how is it inacurate? Lipnski did not say Ge'ez developed by X years but only said "Ge'ez is attested by epigriphs texts from 2nd centuary" while world languages are not dated just based on epigrphs/inscriptions but also with other factors. For this reason better source that precisely say it developed by X years is needed like peter said and if it is not possible to find then we will take Peters precise estimation i.e. 1st millinium BC, since he is a scholar I believe he carefully analysed linguists estimate. Ge’ez is the oldest among Ethiopian Semitic languages and I have sources that supports to the statment I included as "Ge’ez is believed to be the parent". First we solve these issues. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Robertshaw is an archaeologist, so if he indeed believes that Ge'ez was spoken by the 1st millenium BC/pre-Aksumite period, he is probably basing this on an ancient Ge'ez artifact(s) that was perhaps found or excavated rather than on linguistic dating methods. However, per Lipinski, the oldest epigraphs written in Ge'ez only date to the 2nd century AD. By attestation, he means that there is direct proof of the language from only this period onwards (in the form of inscriptions, ancient texts) - prior to the 2nd century AD, Ge'ez is unattested. Therefore, if Ge'ez is indeed attested at an earlier period, we should identify the specific epigraph(s), its date and associated kingdom, as with the Sabaean inscriptions at Yeha and the later Ge'ez inscriptions at Aksum. Soupforone (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, As Pete said below there are also other linguists proposing Horn region as homeland for Proto-semitic, after all it is also proposed to be the homeland of proto-Afro-Asiatic as well. Since it is an encyclopedia various views must be presented as per NPOV and we cannot choose linguists that supports only ones view. Besides, even Lipnski did not say semitics originated from Yemen "for sure" but instead he preferred to say "Sabean inscription found in Ethiopia indicates semitic languages may have been introduced to the region from Yemen". For this reason I will no more support the inclusion of the whole paragraph that we have been discussing about so far. - EthiopianHabesha (talk)

Most linguists actually believe that the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family arose in the Near East. This is largely due to ancient epigraphs that were found. Semitic could indeed have evolved instead in the Horn or Nile Valley, but this is not the main paradigm among Semiticists. Lipinski is conservative in his prose because he apparently believes that the Proto-Semitic speakers originated in the Nile Valley. The Semitic languages would then later have spread eastward into the Levant and Arabian peninsula, and from there younger derivatives would eventually come to be spoken in the Horn as well [43]. Anyway, point understood. Soupforone (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, though, I like Lipnski linguistic analysis. May be we can include the linguistic analysis result & settlement area while leaving the origin part. Several linguists propose different origins, so either we include all views or may be leave it. Here is what it looks like When we leave the origin part:

By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. In the north, the Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar languages appear as the linguistic substratum of the Ge'ez, Tigre and Tigrinya with partial influence on Amharic and Gafat. Substratum of Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages that includes Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were then influenced also by Oromo and by Somali. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more stronger on the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages.

All of it is almost your proposal with the source provided by you while few added from my intial proposal, so I think now it is fine to add it in the article together with the sources we used to make this summary. It would be unfair to make further adjustments and try to exclude all my proposal. EthiopianHabesha (talk)

It looks alright except for certain grammatical errors ("more stronger on"). The phrase asserting that Eastern Sidamo/Highland East Cushitic was the initial substratum for Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage is also awkward. Lipinski doesn't indicate whether this was the first or a later linguistic influence. The following would therefore work better-- "By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the ancient local populations which first adopted the Semitic idioms already spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages of the Cushitic branch. Consequently, the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." Soupforone (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, but I thought we have agreed to leave the origin part. I mean leave the part as to what they speak initially because several linguists proposing several location for proto-semitic with Horn region being one of them. Instead, let's just present only their conclusion (after they analyzed the languages based on several linguistic classifying/studying methodologies). Note that Swahili (in which linguists classify as Bantu language) having Arabic influence/Subtratum may not mean that the Swahili people (black-light skin people) initially spoke Arabic. As for Sidamo or east-highland cushitic being the substratum for Southern Ethio-semitic languages, well it is also awkward for me because previously I thought it was Agaw, inspite of that we need to summarize specialized experts conclusion in good faith (without political & nationalism influence). Besides, I have seen in another linguistic study recently that for southern Semitic the substratum is unidentified East highland Cushitic languages. Therofre, your last proposal somehow is not exactly what Lipnski concluded as regard to studying the languages, so it would be better if you could just add the last one I proposed which I beleive is what Lipnski exactly said, or may be we will ask 3rd opinion as to which one we should include. - EthiopianHabesha (talk)

EthiopianHabesha, Lipinski writes that "Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were influenced also by Oromo and by Somali". He doesn't assert that the "substratum of Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic covered the domain of the southern Ethiopian Semitic languages that includes Amharic, Argobba, Harari, and Gurage, which were then influenced also by Oromo and by Somali". "Then" indicates a later moment in a given chronology. The wording that the "Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences" is thus more accurate. As to the actual origin of the Ethiopian Semitic languages, none is hypothesized above. That the local populations originally spoke Cushitic idioms does not necessarily have any bearing on Ge'ez's area of origin; it is also something Lipinski indicates ("the Semitic languages of Eritrea and Ethiopia occupy a geographical area in which Cushitic was and still is employed"). Anyway, Highland East Cushitic is the main substrate in Harari and Gurage; it also has an influence on Amharic, whose primary substrate is indeed Agaw. Lipinski conveys this rather nicely. This wording is therefore workable-- "By the medieval period, the Semitic languages would have spread southward as far as southern Shewa, eastward into the Hararghe highlands, and westward up to eastern Damot (eastern Wellega). Linguistic analysis further indicates that the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates. The Amharic, Argobba, Harari and Gurage tongues spoken in central Ethiopia are characterized by an Eastern Sidamo or Highland East Cushitic substratum, as well as Oromo and Somali influences. Overall, the linguistic impact of the Cushitic languages is more marked toward the south." Soupforone (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, your last proposal is fine and also what Lipnski said, add it in the article. I think our discussion for this part is over. — EthiopianHabesha (talk)

Alright. Soupforone (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References