Talk:Yeshaq (Bahr Negus)

Name

Why isn't this at Bahr Negash Yeshaq or Bahr negash Yeshaq? "Negus" is the late Ge'ez and Amharic term, but the original word was negash (actually nagāš i.e. nagaash in Ge'ez) in Ge'ez and later Tigrinya, and the Tigrinya word "negash" is kept for the title. Taddesse Tamrat uses "negash" in Church and State, for instance, rather than "negus." — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, because "Bahr negus" was the title of my original redirect to Ethiopian aristocratic and religious titles? (I just discovered that someone revised that redirect to point to Negus, which needs an awful lot of work.) Although Prof. Taddesse Tamrat uses bahr negash, I felt that emphasizing the similarity between the two titles helped explain the meaning of this title. If it's wrong, feel free to change it. (And what should we do about the material at Negus?) -- llywrch 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it to make sure, but it should probably be moved. the note with Negus could easily be noted with a "cp. Negus" in the first sentence of the article, and Negus should probably include information about "Negash" anyway. It certainly needs a cleanup and could incorporate a lot more information. I really have no idea what to do with it, though, as the title has been used more often for 19th century rulers, about whom I don't know as much. Sorry if I seemed a little aggressive in my above edit. Re-reading, it sounds accusatory. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Negus means King not governor of a province. The translation of the Bahr neguses domain as "province" in English as opposed to "Kingdom" (of a King) is misleading. Province indicates an integral unit of a greater body (usually one state or country or kingdom etc), which in this case is ironically dubbed "Empire". Now Empires consist of several Kingdoms, not several provinces (these are the subdivision of kingdoms not empires). So the terminology used here for a King (Bahr negus) ruler of a province or provinces...with no mention of a kingdom, makes no sense. When put into the political context of nationalist Ethiopian interests however, this confused and flawed terminology makes perfect sense, no less flawed but nevertheless it betrays the intention to gloss over any impression of divisions of interests, separate identities and rivalry for power among several equal contenders in the highly mythical concept of "Ethiopia" and instead perpetuate the traditional fable of an unshakable and solidly united trimillenial "Empire". This confused terminology clearly shows a desire to describe both the

"grandeur" and "unity" of "Ethiopia". Particularly in relation to the trauma suffered by Ethiopian nationalists with the seccession of Eritrea from Ethiopia, it is expected to find this kind of cultural chauvinism grasping at least for the elusive past as all theirs and denying all further notions of divisions...