Talk:Omotic languages

Classification of Dizoid within Omotic

According to Marvin Dean Beachy [1] on page 21 in section 1.5 "Language Classifcation",

"Dizin is a member of the Omotic language family, which has generally been considered a member of the Afrasian (Afro-Asiatic) language family. Omotic was known as Western Cushitic until Fleming and Bender argued for a separate language family in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Hayward 1990:vii-viii). The internal classifications of the Omotic languages are still unsettled questions. Even the inclusion of Omotic in Afrasian is a matter of some debate. Bender has even speculated "about the possibility that part of Omotic is indeed Afrasian but that perhaps Aroid and Dizoid (AD) are not" (2003:xii). It will be interesting to see where the evidence leads in the coming years. In his recent reanalysis of the Omotic data based on morphology, Bender calls "Dizi" a member of Dizoid which is a member of Dizoid-Aroid which is a member of TNDA. That abbreviation stands for "t tt tɑ ɑɑ ɑ/ ne nene ne" (pronouns common to the TN group) and "Dizoid-Aroid" (2003:1-7, 299)...Dizin's next closest linguistic relatives, according to Bender, are the Aroid languages: Ari, Hamer, and Dimé. Some of the languages from the TN side of the TNDA group are Welaitta, Basketo, Malé, Kooreté, Benchnon (Gimira), Yem (Janjero), Kaficho, and Shekacho (Mocha) (2003:1-7).

I am not, at all, sure of what that means exactly...whether Dizoid is morphologically Somotic or whether Aroid is morphologically Nomotic??? A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit incoherent. It's also an MA thesis. Best to read Bender (2003) directly:

Bender, M. Lionel. 2003. Omotic Lexicon and Phonology. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University

— kwami (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bender (2003) and (2007) were used in the composite Afrasiatic classification at Multitree. The Omotic stuff looks like what you describe, so maybe it's him. I'm not sure they got it right (they list Zala twice, and they misspelled Kefoid), but they have:

• Mao
• TNAD
  • AD
    • Dizoid
    • Aroid
  • TN
    • Yem–Kefoid
    • Gimira (Benc', She)
    • Macro-Ometo
      • C'ara
      • SE Ometo (Kore, Harro, Zayse)
      • NW Ometo (Welaitta cluster, Zala, Oyda, Doko, Male, Malo, Basketo)

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply on this conversation, Kwami. I see that on Multitree. So should Wikipedia reflect that apparently updated classification within Omotic [2] which is clearly different from what is in the Wikipedia article now? I think the new schema should be reflected in the article along with the old schema, what say you? A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Genomic data

The article currently says, "However, a 2017 study using genomic data indicates that the Omotic languages are not part of the Afroasiatic family." Genomic data reflects human descent, not descent of a language. Shouldn't it be rewritten as "However, a 2017 study using genomic data indicates that the speakers of Omotic languages are not closely related to speakers who speak other languages of the Afroasiatic family"? Pete unseth (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

At the least. We might also note that Basque, Romance, Armenian, Chechen and Georgian are in the Afroasiatic family. Romance and Berber are particularly closely related. Afroasiatic in turn is closest to Germanic and Balto-Slavic, so I suppose that means it's a branch of the Indo-European family. Nostraticists, take note.

I find the following comment particularly enlightening as to the lack of knowledge of the authors: "this result does not indicate whether Mande languages should be considered as part of the Niger-Congo language family".

Read the article, and you'll notice a lot of self-fulfilling prophecy -- fudging definitions of language proposals to fit genomic results, ignoring things that don't fit (e.g. Na-Dene within Amerind). The amount of bullshit published in Nature as linguistics over the years has been amazing. Maybe because actual linguistics isn't number-based? — kwami (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There have been edits that referred to a study of genomic data. However, groupings based on genomic data do not definitively support linguistic groupings. Simply reinserting the same reference does not add to the article. Pete unseth (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pete unseth: I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye on it. I'm not here very often. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikpedia

Are there any Wikpedia in this languages?--Kaiyr (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)