Page 1 of 10

By Asar Imhotep (Sun of the Soil)

(September 18, 2014)

The MOCHA-Versity Institute of Philosophy and Research

luntu/lumtu/muntu

The following is a summary of an analysis on the formation of the plural (a linguistic feature) in the

Negro-Egyptian (N-E) language phylum, reconstructed by Jean-Claude Mboli in his work Origine des

Langues Africaines (2010). His analysis begins in Chapter VIII: “Additional Negro-Egyptian Languages.”

This chapter is meant to add further validity to the methods and conclusions reached in chapters 1-7. His

initial analysis considered 6 primary languages: Sango, Hausa, Middle-Egyptian, Coptic, Zande and

Somali. In this section of the book he added an additional 8 languages to see if they fit the criteria for

inclusion in the N-E language phylum. They are: Swahili, Lingala, Gbaya, Banda, Wolof, Bambara, Nuer

and Zerma. This brings us to a total of 14 languages examined. The subsection VIII.2.5 (pp. 467-474)

deals with the “Plural Suffix” in the N-E phylum, and this is where our summary begins. We should keep

in mind that the following is not a word-for-word translation (from the original French), but my summary

with additional insights to enhance the discussion.

VIII.2.5 Suffixe du pluriel:

Mboli (2010) reconstructs the N-E plural suffix as *-kʲunʷ. In Middle-Egyptian (M-E), this suffix was

reduced to .w, .i, or .ii, but it equally appears in the archaic form n- in the demonstrative plurals nA, nw,

and nn. This archaic form is also present as –n in the plural suffix pronouns n, tn, sn; and as i- in the

archaic plural demonstratives ipw, and ipn. All of these facts show that the plural marker may also appear

as a prefix: an affix which first appeared at the time of the unity of Negro-Egyptian, even though it

derived from a suffixal form. The Bantu languages will help us to demonstrate this.

Page 2 of 10

If Bantu class prefixes take the suffix marker of gender as we have just demonstrated, they were

bound to behave in the same way with the plural suffix inherited from N-E, the combination might

significantly change the very shape of the class prefixes when they pass from singular to plural. This

would help to explain the existence of the class-pairs that we see in Bantu: mainly the singular & plural

classes. It is, for example, extremely easy to explain, also, the following prefix class forms: 1 (to be

human, masculine singular) and 2 (to be human, plural).

1) Class 1: *ŋʲʷə-cʰʷŭ > *ŋʷ-w > proto-bantu *mu- (Swahili m-, Lingala mo-, Bangala mu-)

2) Class 2: *hɨ-ki ʷa- > *hɨ-kwa- > proto-bantu *ĭɓa- (Swahili wa-, Lingala ba-, Bangala ɓa-)

To be absolutely rigorous, we have to admit that the form *ĭɓa- (< *hɨ-ki ʷa-) is not the plural of *mu- (<

*ŋʲʷə-cʰʷŭ), but of the N-E prefix of neutral animate: *hɨ-. This has also left traces in Bantu (cf. Lingala

e.toma « messenger », e.limo « spirit », etc.). In the previous two examples, the initial [h] sound in the

*hɨ- prefix was dropped in Lingala, leaving the closed central unrounded vowel [*ɨ], which became /e-/

in the examples above. The plural form *ŋʷu- is rather ŋʷ-kw-w, which itself is a reduction of *ŋʲʷə-ki ʷa-

cʰʷŭ. In the historical languages that correspond to the form *mo- or *mɔ, these are unfortunately too

close in pronunciation to the *mu- lexeme, hence the replacement with *ĭɓwa-. In other words, the forms

*mo- and *mu- sounded too much alike and they began to be confused. As a result, the form *ĭɓwa-

became the substitute as not to cause further confusion.

The Bantu languages have a very ancient prefix class (Class-9) that it shares with practically all

of the N-E languages which are compared in Mboli (2010). This class is inherited from its predialectical

ancestor without subsequent regeneration. This class concerns itself only with living beings, not

surprisingly, so it is reduced to a homorganic nasal N- (proof of its extreme antiquity) in almost all Bantu

languages. The [ŋ] symbol in the prefix *ŋʷu- represents the sound /ng/, like in the English word “sing.”

In linguistics, this [ŋ] sound is called a “velar nasal.” The voiced velar /g/ sound was dropped for this

prefix in Bantu and we are left with the nasal sound /n/: i.e., ng > n.

We now know the shape of the prefix of agent *ŋʲʷə (discussed earlier in the text), but it must

have had the following form in Proto-Bantu (P-B): *ŋʲʷ-. But the plural form of class-10 is identical to

class-9, N- in almost all Bantu languages, *ŋʲʷ- in P-B. This should not surprise us, according to Mboli,

because if the N-E plural suffix -ki ʷa was at the same time contracted to *-w, although less pronounced

than the prefix of agent—which plays the role of a noun—we can expect the following changes: *ˈŋʲʷ-w-

> *ŋʲʷ-. Hence we reach an important conclusion: the formal identity between the singular marker and the

plural of the animate class (9/10)—the most archaic class of Proto-Bantu—has the same formal identity

between the mark of the masculine and the plural in M-E and Hausa (1. M-E nA "this", "those"); Hausa -n

(masculine singular suffix), -n (plural suffix (neutral)).

When the grammatical gender arose in N-E, the plural suffix *-ki ʷa > *w began to see its form

mirror that of the masculine suffix -w < *-cʰʷŭ, which eventually became identical with each other. In

other words, the plural suffix and the masculine gender suffix became homonyms1 in N-E. By joining with

the prefix of agent *ŋʲʷə-, these two suffixes will provide identical morphemes dating all the way back to

the period of the unity of N-E. We note also that the plural morpheme *-kʲunʷ actually consists of two

parts: *-ki ʷa, which expresses the notion of quantity, followed by *nʷ, which is the reduced form of the

neutral (animated) and the masculine. Said another way:

*-kʲunʷ (plural suffix) = *-ki ʷa (quantity) + *nʷ (neutral (animated) and the masculine)

1 In linguistics, a homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same pronunciation but may

have different meanings. Thus, homonyms are simultaneously homographs (words that share the same spelling,

regardless of their pronunciation) and homophones (words that share the same pronunciation, regardless of their

spelling).

Page 3 of 10

This allows for a re-analysis of the morphology of the Negro-Egyptian and M-E plural as follows.

Inanimate objects simply form their plurals by adding *-ki ʷa (M-E .w or .ø)2 to the root;

The animated gender is followed by the suffix *-ŋʲʷə (M-E .n, .w or .ø), giving us *-ki ʷa-ŋʲʷə >

*kʲunʷ (M-E .w, .n or .ø).

If the masculine suffix *ŋʲʷə-cʰʷŭ (M-E .w or .n) and feminine suffixes *-ki ʷa (.t or .ii) appears,

as required by agglutinative morphology, they are simply added at the end of the root word. This

gives M-E: masculine plural .w, .n or .ø; feminine plural .w.t or .t.

The plural is also evident in the class designated for the parts of the body, whose singular prefix (class-5)

must have the form *ɨ-kɨ- in P-B (Swahili ki-, Lingala li-, Bemba ku, Kikongo di-, Zulu i(li)-, Tshiluba di-

). The corresponding plural prefix (class-6) *ŋʷa-, is in fact not related to the singular form. Rather, it

expresses the feminine in the sense of “bulk, principle party, and collective.” This is why it is used to

identify non-countable objects (i.e., matched objects (pairs), multiples, and liquid masses). It comes from

the feminine suffix morpheme *-ki ʷa and the prefix of agent *ŋʲʷə- : *ŋʲʷə-ki ʷa > *ŋʲʷa- > *ma-. The

existence of this Bantu feminine prefix is of great importance. It shows that P-B was able to reconstruct

the triplet:

1. Masculine singular n,

2. Feminine singular (n)t,

3. Neuter plural n

This is conserved in M-E and Hausa, and it was then subsequently reduced to the pair (animate singular,

animate plural). Only the form had changed, but the semantax remained the same: masculine singular =

animated + « man », feminine singular = animated + « woman », neuter plural = animated + « big, huge

». Said another way:

Masculine singular = animated (ŋʲʷə) + man (*-cʰʷŭ)

Feminine singular = animated (ŋʲʷə) + woman (*-ki ʷa)

Neuter plural = animated (ŋʲʷə) + big/huge (*-ki ʷa)

There is no doubt that the P-B triplet (*mu-, *ma-, *ĭɓʷa-) is a regeneration of the N-E triplet represented

by M-E (n, t, n) and Hausa (-n, -r, -n). This regeneration is required due to the reduction of the original

triplet pair (singular *ŋʲʷ, plural *ŋʲʷ-); the risk is the obvious distinction between singular and plural.

Some Bantu languages faced this exact situation and responded by creating a new prefix. An example can

be seen in Mbochi (Democratic Republic of Congo): ndae “house,” a-ndae “houses” (Obenga: 1993, p.

97). Here is how it must have happened. The Bantu prefixes of classes 9 and 10—which dates back to N-

E, that is to say, is shared by all Negro-African languages—were originally distinct: *ŋʲʷ- for the neuter

singular and *ŋʲʷ- for the plural.

Therefore, the Mbochi language has re-accentuated the initial vowel to ensure sufficient

distinction between the two forms: *ĭŋʲʷ- > *əŋʲʷ- > *aŋʲʷ-. Since the *ŋʲʷ- prefix had been lexicalized,

there then appeared the prefix of plural a-, represented in the singular by ø-. This process may have

occurred independently in N-E. This process is in fact found in Sango, Zandé, Gbaya and in Banda.

Sango, Zandé, Gbaya: ø- the singular,

Sango, Zandé, Gbaya, Banda: a- , a-, ʔo- a- (respectively).

Let us analyze the following sentences:

2 The ø symbol means “zero,” or “not present.”

Page 4 of 10

1) Sango :

a) zo « person »

b) azo « persons »

c) kota zo « great (kota) person »

d) akota azo « great persons (grownups) »

2) Zandé :

a) bɔrɔ « person »

b) abɔrɔ « persons »

c) bibiri bɔrɔ « person (bɔrɔ) black (bibiri) »

d) abibiri abɔrɔ « black people »

These facts clearly show that this feature is in both languages as a prefix and cannot be considered a free

morpheme: it is the culmination of the N-E Post-Classic morpheme *hɨ. How could a prefix of the neuter

singular come to express the plural? The answer lies in the similarity of the masculine (*cʰʷŭ), feminine

(*ki ʷa) and plural (*ki ʷa)3 forms, and in the inevitable reduction (usure) in the size of the affix, a

characteristic observed in all languages around the world: the masculine plural (*hɨ-ki ʷa-cʰʷŭ) and the

feminine plural (*hɨ-ki ʷa-ki ʷa) were initially confused and merged into a single morpheme of the neuter

plural *hɨ-ki ʷa, pushing the singular forms *hɨcʰʷŭ and *hɨ-ki ʷa) to be even shorter. That is to say that

these longer forms became monosyllabic in order to ensure the distinction between the singular and the

plural. They can, in turn, merge and disappear more easily because of their likeness to each other, and the

masculine-feminine distinction had already disappeared into the plural. Thus, the total or partial loss of

grammatical gender in N-E is almost inevitable and observed historically (as in M-E, Coptic and Zande).

This “syntax” for the morphemes of gender, number and its model of grammaticalization has

been rigorously applied, as we shall now see, by the N-E languages. We first reconstruct the shape for the

word “man, husband” in N-E Archaic4 after all of the data we have thus far: *ŋʲʷə,(ki,ku). This

reconstruction consists of the prefix of agent (*ŋʲʷə) followed (or preceded) by the root (*ki,ku “summit,

top”). This can give the following forms:

1. *(ki-wu)-ŋʲʷə > *cu-ŋʷ

2. *ŋʲʷə-(ki-wu) > *n-cu (origin of the famous P-B root *ntu)

3. *ŋʲʷə-(ku-yi) > *hɨ-kwi > tʷi, *kʷi > *ɉi

4. *(ku-ki)-ŋʲʷə > *kʷi-ŋʷ

These forms above demonstrate how the same initial root, with the same affix (either prefixed or suffixed

to the root) changes over time in different dialects of a proto-language and how the final forms may

appear to be different, but ultimately derive from the same source.

All four of these forms have left traces of themselves in most historical N-E languages, which

proves that they have been created before the final dispersion of the N-E. They are now mere lexemes

meaning “person.” They are again associated with the two types of affixes spoken of earlier: ŋʲʷə-cʰʷŭ >

*ŋʷu- (masculine) and *ŋʲʷə-ki ʷa > *ŋʷa-(feminine) to generate the words for “man” and “woman”

respectively. Form number 1. from above has given us mutum “man” < *ŋʷu-cuŋʷ-w “male” in Hausa,

rm.T “person” < *wcunʷ-w in M-E, and *rumi “husband” in P-B (Swahili m.ume « husband », Bangala

mo.lome « husband »).

3 The N-E words for « male », « female » and « quantity » , all three derive from the same archaic root *ki,ku with

the original meaning of « mountain » and which itself has derivatives in one direction: 1. « high», « head », « chief»

> « male » ; 2. « pile, heap, stack » > « quantity» ; 3.« pregnancy » > « female ». 4 Negro-Egyptian Archaic is a stage in the development of the N-E language phylum. The three stages as

reconstructed by Mboli (2010) are: N-E Archaic, N-E Classic and N-E Post-Classic.

Page 5 of 10

The morphology of the N-E word is clearly the grammaticalization of the phrase *ŋʲʷə-w cuŋʷ-

(ŋʲʷə)w “this” (*cuŋʷ-(ŋʲʷə)w) “man.” When applied to form 2. we get the P-B form muntu “person.”

However it is form 3. that has had the most success in the N-E languages: *ŋʲʷə-w ˈkui-tʷi « this man » >

*ŋ.kʷutʷi « man, husband, chief ». We therefore have the following outcomes: 1. M.E ws-ir « Osiris »5, 2.

Sango koli « mâle », 3. Zandé ko « him (person) », 4. Hausa tsirara « nudity », 5. qoodh “circumcised

member,” proto-bantu *ŋ.kʷudi « chief, husband » (Lingala mo.konzi « chief », Kikongo nkwedi «

husband », Xhosa in.kosi « chief »), Bbaya wei < *kwedi « husband », Banda kosi « male », Wolof goor «

male » (kooy « penis »), Zerma koy « male ». With a different accentual distribution only (*ˈŋʲʷə-w kui-tʷi

> *ŋʷu.kʷɨ), we have other shapes, but they are fewer in number, of the same important N-E base word: 1.

Hausa miji < *mu.ɉii « husband », Bambara mogo < *mu.ko « man ».

In true African fashion, the husband/male cannot exist without his wife. It is expected that the

word for “woman, wife, mother” was created at the same time as the one for “male.” That is to say that

this must have the form *ŋʲʷə-j(w)a ˈki ʷa-tʷi « this woman » > *ŋ.kʷadi « woman, wife, mother ». The

facts are absolutely clear then: 1. M-E As.t « Isis »6, 2. Sango wali < *kwadi « woman », 3. Somali oori <

*wari « wife », 4. proto-bantu *ŋkʷadi « wife » (Lingala mwasi < *ŋwasi « woman », Kikongo kazi «

wife »), 5. Gbaya koo « wife », 6. Banda yasi « wife », 7. Zerma way « woman ». Another possible form

(*ˈŋʲʷə-j(w)a ki ʷa-tʷi > *ŋʷa.kʷadi) equally exist as: 1. M-E mwt « mother », 2. Hausa mace « mother »,

3. Bambara muso « woman ».

This N-E pair (*ŋʲʷə-w ˈkui-tʷi « chef, leader, male », *ŋʲʷə-j(w)a ˈki ʷa-tʷi « wife, woman,

mother »), has been meticulously reconstructed and is duly attested in ancient and modern languages is an

absolute proof of the existence of the grammatical gender in N-E Post Classic. It perfectly defines this

state of the proto-language and throws an entirely new and unexpected light on the semantics and

morphology of some significant words in M-E. The M-E word Hm “chief, ruler, leader” is adequately

explained by the proto form *ŋʲʷəcuŋʷ, as against its female counterpart Hm.t “woman.” It is clear that with these two bi-consonantal roots, it is the vowels that make the difference. With all of the facts already

known, the radical forms should be complete: *xʷuŋʷu « chief » (Lingala n.kumu « traditional religious

leader », Kikongo m.fumu « leader », Banda kumu « head », Zandé kumba < *kunʷ-(j)a « husband »,

Bambara kũ « head ») and xʷiŋʲʷi « woman ».

It is also important to note the form *ßuru < *w-kuri-u « chief, leader, man » is found in many

languages: 1. M-E wr « chief, leader, god, great », 2. Zandé boro « man », 3. Lingala li.bolo «

vagina » (inversion), 4. Gbaya fala « testicle », 5. Bambara foro « penis » (-baga « suffix of agent »), 6.

Zerma boro « man ». I should also add that this is where we get the term in Yoruba baálé/balé "father,

leader"; "householder, master of a house"; "governor, president, chief of a town or village.” The name of

the Canaanite God Baal “lord, master, husband” (Akk. bēlu "lord; proprietor") is cognate with this term.

Baal simply means “father” and denotes the Divine as the “Chief spirit,” “The progenitor of all life,”

“The ruler of all that exist.” The TOB database has the following reconstructions:

Proto-Afro-Asiatic: *baʕVl-

Meaning: “elder male relative in-law, husband”

Semitic: *baʕl- 'husband, master, owner'

Central Chadic: *bVlaw- 'man' (?)

Saho-Afar: *ball-'father-in-law'

5 The important word here is ws (variant of n.sw) and the homonym for the word for “seat” (ws ~ n.sw)., but

undoubtedly means “head, chief.” So ws-ir means something like « great chief » (wr ~ ir « great,

ancient/old/elder/father »). We can add that this is why the “throne” in the ancient African world signified the

“king.” It is purely a result of paronymy and homonymy at work (i.e., the word for “seat” sounded like the word for

“man, head, chief”). 6 Mubabinge Bilolo renders M-E As.t as CiSa/DyAsa, DiSwa “mother” (Kalamba & Bilolo, 2009: 147). The online

ciLuba database (www.ciyem.ugent.be) informs us that diSwa also means "bird's nest" (ciswa "pothole"); diSwa

"love, discretion, desire"; "be proud, be smug, boast"; (-swà "love, want").

Page 6 of 10

Low East Cushitic: *HVbbVl- 'brothers and sisters; relatives' ~ *bVHVl- `husband, lover' (<Sem?)

High East Cushitic: *bVHil- 'master' 1, 'friend'

2

South Cushitic: *balaʔ/ʕ- 'cross-cousin'

Notes: Related to *baʕVl- 'rule, command; own; be able'.

Here Baal is another form of the word Allah in Arabic, and this root has come to form a great number of

words which have been used to represent the Divine: all by way of metaphoric-extension. The word Allah

(‘-ḷ-h) derives from the same root as M-E bAH (b- -h) “phallus,” which we see above is in the same

semantic field as “man, leader, chief, head.” Compare with bAH “ancestor, predecessor, one who came

before.”7

Table 1: Baal8

Canaanite Lu-ganda Yorùbá Hebrew “Divinities” Ba’al Lu-baale

ba-lu-baale

Be’al-iym

“husband” baálé ba’al

(ha-‘išš-ah)

“land lord” Bale ilé ba’al

hab-bayit

“chief of rural

settlement”

baálé

The Hebrew word ba’al “lord, master” was too close to the name of the Canaanite God Ba’al, and as a

result, the Hebrew’s ‘God’ banned the usage of the word ba’al in relation to him. Hosea 2:16-17 tells us

that:

In that day, says Yahweh

You will call me “My ‘iyš”

No longer will you call me “My ba’al”

For I will remove the names of the be’al-iym from her mouth

And they will be mentioned by name no more.

As a result of the rejection of b‘l, the Hebrews adopted the Afroasiatic root ‘lh (alah) “lord” for “divine

lord” (Hebrew ‘eloah “God,” ‘eloh’iym “lords” (Gods); Yorùbá olúwa “lord, master,” olúwo “head of the

Osugbo, the council of chiefs,” orúwo “head” (Ijebu dialect); Egyptian wr “lord, chief, master, great one.”

Mboli (2013: 472) is almost certain that the Egyptian word pr-aA “pharaoh” means nothing more than « big (aA) king (pr < *ßuru) and that this word has nothing to do with the forced etymology of “great

house.” But it is the root *kə ʷ < *(ku-ki)-ŋʷ that is most interesting. It should normally result in

something like M-E *km « chief/leader » > « husband » > « man ». Is there such a word in M-E and in

other Negro-African languages? Mboli argues “yes” if we are willing to translate the word km.t by “men” and not by “Egyptians,” which is the normal translation by Egyptologists; or by “black” as did Cheikh

Anta Diop9 and so many other African Egyptologists. Indeed the ethnonym most commonly used by

people to describe themselves in their own language is the word for "man" (see Imhotep (2009)). The

ancient Egyptians actually used the word rmT “man” to designate themselves. Mboli—just like Sambu

2011, Imhotep 2013, 2014, Bilolo 2012—is not of the belief that the Egyptians would use a term

designating color to distinguish themselves in an area by which they were surrounded by others who had

the same skin complexion. As noted by Mboli (2010), Pfouma (n.d.) and Imhotep (2009, 2014), there is

7 See Asar IMHOTEP (2013), Aaluja: Rescue, Reinterpretation and the Restoration of Major Ancient Egyptian

Themes, Vol. I. MOCHA Versity Press. Houston, TX for an expanded discussion on these terms. 8 Saakana (1991: 72).

9 Histoire générale de l'Afrique II, UNESCO 1987, p. 54).

Page 7 of 10

no determinative denoting color, any more than there is in the title km-wr , who Diop and

others before him translated as “great black.” The correct translation of this phrase should be “great king”

and is reflected in Yorùbá as Ologun (wr gn) “great ruler, warrior king, owner of power.” See the M-E

dialectical variant gn wr “great ruler.”

To further support Mboli’s initial assertions, I recall the rendering noted in Imhotep (2014: 19) of

km.t , which has the people determinative, but which is not rendered in the actual texts with a

“plural.” In the literary Hymns to Sesotris III (Dyn. XII), we find the following passage (pl. III, 3-5):10

jj.n.f n.n HkA.n.f Km.t rdj.n.f dSr.t m ab.f jj.n.f n.n mkj.n.f tAwy sgrH.n.f jdbwy jj.n.f n.n

sanx.n.f Km.t xsr.n.f Snww.s

“It was (after) he had ruled Egypt, and (after) he had put the Desert in his company, that he came

to us. It was (after) he had protected the Two Lands, and (after) he had pacified the Two Banks,

that he came to us. It was (after) he had caused Egypt to live and (after) he had removed its needs,

that he came to us.”

The way this passage is worded lets us know that it is talking about the state as a political entity, and not

the nisbe-adjective form Kmtyw “those of Kemet.” This is supported by the fact that km.t is used in the

same manner as all of the other political locations in the text. The names dSr.t, tAwy and jdbwy in the

original text do not employ personal determinatives. Furthermore, after the second sentence containing

the word km.t, it refers back to the word km.t by means of a third-person singular feminine suffix pronoun

.s “its.” If it spoke about the people, we would expect .sn “their, they, them,” not “its.”

Moreover, in even further support of a “man, king, leader” interpretation of the root km in km.t, we note the following rendition in Budge:

km.t = Egypt

Budge (BoD) (1898: 340)

This form of km.t is written with a seated man with a beard, denoting “god” (nTr) in the hieroglyphic

writing script. It is my contention that this determinative was used because it was probably also

rendered as km in the Egyptian language. The word Hm “man, king” is a dialectical variant of this root

km.11

Outside of M-E, we have the attestation of N-E *kʷiŋʷ in Nuer (ram « person ») and in Proto-Bantu

(*hami « chief » (Kinyarwanda umw.ami « king »))

Getting back to the suffixal plural formation, we have come to precisely show that the syntax

form *ŋʲʷə-ki ʷa-ROOT-ki ʷa has been grammaticalized in the attested languages as plural prefixes of

different shapes/forms. These have come to gradually eclipse the plural which was originally suffixed to

the root. In most cases where this has happened, there has been either lexicalisation or outright

disappearance. But in many languages it remained active, and has even ousted all prefixal forms

following *ŋʲʷə-ki ʷa. This is the case in Bambara where the plural is formed by suffixation of -w, exactly

as in M-E: muso « woman » > muso-w « women ». Certainly, an Africanist may object to this on account

10

F.L. Griffith, The Petrie Papyri: Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gruob (Principally of the Middle Kingdom),

vol. 2: Plates (London: Quaritch, 1898) pl. 3: a facsimile appears in G. Moller, Hieratische Lesetucke fur den

akademischen Gebrauch, vol. 1: Altund Mittelhieratische Texte (2d. ed.; Leipzing: Hinrichs, 1927) pl. 5;

conveniently transcribed in K. Sethe, Agyptische Lesestucke zum Gebrauch im akademischen Unterricht (Leipzing:

Hinrichs, 1928) 37. 11

See Imhotep (2013) for M-E and N-E H and k correspondences.

Page 8 of 10

of other Mande languages (Creissels, 1991, p. 108), which have -lu instead of -w, and that proto-Mande is

more likely to have *-lu as the plural morpheme instead of *-w. But it is just further proof of the Negro-

Egyptian origin of Bambara -w. Indeed it is easy to derive the suffix -lu from N-E *-ki ʷa knowing that -

ki- gives -l- in Bambara (but also in many other N-E languages).

Finally, we mention the P-N-E *ŋʲʷə-kʷɨkɨ-w « forces », whose achievements in Sango, Zande,

Hausa and Somali (mbau, mangu, ƙarfi, burji respectively) all lexicalized the plural suffix *-w. This is

also found in the Swahili word mbavu “power.” This confirms that we are dealing with a very old word,

which has played a major role in the post-classical Negro-Egyptian culture. Given the forms above, I

would also equate it with M-E bA “might, power,” bAw “power, sledgehammer, beater” (bAw “glory,

respect, authority, power, strength, fate, might, impressiveness”) in that mix.

ALLEN, James P. (2005). The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Society of Biblical Literature.

______ (2010). Middle Egyptian: An Introduction into the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, 2nd Edition.

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

______ (2013). The Ancient Egyptian Language: A Historical Study. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

BILOLO, Mubabinge. (2010). Invisibilite et Immanence du Createur Imn (Amon-Amun-Amen-Iman-Zimin):

Example de la Vitalite de l’Ancien Egyptien ou CiKam dans le Cyena Ntu. Publications Universitaires

Africaines. Munich-Kinshasa-Paris.

Page 9 of 10

______ (2008). Meta-Ontologie Egyptienne du –IIIe millenaire Madwa Meta-Untu: Tum-Nunu ou Sha-

Ntu (APA. I.8). Munich-Kinshasa-Paris.

______ (2011). Vers un Dictionnaire Cikam-Copte-Luba: Bantuite du vocabulaire egyptien-copte dans les essays de Homburger

et d’Obenga. Publications Universitaires Africaines. Germany.

BUDGE, E.A. Wallis. (1904). The Gods of the Egyptians: or Studies in Egyptian Mythology. 2 vols. Open Court.

London and Methuen and Chicago.

______ (1908). The Book of the Kings of Egypt: Dynasties I-XIX. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.,

London.

______(1898). Book of the Dead: A Vocabulary of Hieroglyphs. Paternoster House. London.

______(1911). A Vocabulary of Hieroglyphs to the Theban Recension of the Book of the Dead, 2nd Edition. Kegan Paul, Trench,

Trubner & CO., Ltd.

______ (2003). Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vol.1 and II. Kessinger Publishing, LLC. New York, NY.

DIOP, Chiekh A. (1991). Civilization or Barbarism: An authentic anthropology. Lawrence Hill Books.

Brooklyn, NY.

______ (1974). African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Lawrence Hill & Co.

______ (1977).Parenté génétique de l'égyptien pharaonique et des langue snégro-africaines: processus de

sémitisation. Les Nouvelles Éditions Africaines. Ifan-Dakar.

______ (1987). Precolonial Black Africa: A Comparative Study of the Political and Social Systems of Europe and

Black Africa, from Antiquity to the Formation of Modern States. Lawrence Hill Company. Westport, CT.

______ (1989).The cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and Matriarchy in Classical

Antiquity. Karnak House. UK.

EHRET, Christopher. (2002). The Civilization of Africa: A History to 1800. University of Virginia Press.

______ (2000). “Language and History.” In: B. Heine and D. Nurse African Languages: An Introduction.

Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom. pp. 272-297.

ERMAN, Adolph & Grapow, Hermann. (1971). WÖRTERBUCH DER AEGYPTISCHEN SPRACHE im Auftrage

der deutschen Akademien hrsg Bd. I-V. Unveränderter Nachdruck. Berlin.

FAULKNER, R.O. (1962). A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum.

Oxford.

GARDINER. Alan H. (1957). Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs,

3rd edition. Friffith Institute Oxford. Cambridge.

GOELET, Ogden. (1999). "Kemet and Other Egyptian Terms for Their Land." In: R. Chazan, W.W. Hallo, L.H. Schiffman

(Eds). Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Eisenbrauns.

Winona Lake, Indiana. pp. 23-42.

GOLDWASSER, Orly. (2006). “A Comparison between Classifier Language and Classifier Script: The Case of Ancient

Egyptian.” In: A Festschrift for Hans Jakob Polotsky, Ed. G. Goldenberg, 16-39, Magnes Press: Jerusalem.

GOLDWASSER, Orly & Colette, Grinevald. (2012). "What are 'Determinatives' Good For?" In: E. Grossman, S. Polis & J.

Winand (Eds.). Lexical Semantics in Ancient Egyptian. Widmaier Verlag | Hamburg. pp.17-53.

HOMBURGER, Lilias. (1929). “Africa” in EB ps. 333f [cited in R. van Bulck, Les RecherchesLinguistiques au

Congo Belge, Libraire Falk fils, Burxelles. 1948: 63].

IMHOTEP, Asar. (2011). Passion of the Christ or Passion of Osiris: The Kongo Origins of the Jesus Myth.

MOCHA-Versity Press. Houston, TX.

______ (2012). “Egypt in its African Context Note 3: Towards a Method for Vocalizing mdw nTr Symbols.”

______ (2013). Aaluja: Rescue, Reinterpretation and the Restoration of Major Ancient Egyptian Themes, Vol. I. MOCHA-

Versity Press. Houston, TX.

______ (2014). “A Lesson in Egyptian Determinatives: The Case of KMT.” MOCHA-Versity Press. Houston, TX.

KALAMBA, Nsapo and Bilolo, Mubabinge. (Eds). (2009). Renaissance of the Negro-African Theology: Essays in

Honor of Professor. Bimwenyi-Kweshi. Publications Universitaires Africaines. Munich, Freising, Kinshasa.

MBOLI, Jean-Claude. (2010). Origine des langues africaines: Essai d’application de la méthode comparative aux langues

africaines anciennes et modernes. L'Harmattan. Paris.

NDIGI, Oum. (1993). "Le Basaa, l'egyptien pharaonique et le copte: premiers jalons revelateurs d'une parente

insoupconne.” In: ANKH, revue d'egyptologie et des civilisations aficainse, n2, avril. pp.19-27.

OBENGA, Theophile. (2004). African Philosophy: The Pharaonic Period 2780-330 BC. Per Ankh

Publishing. Senegal.

______ (1992). Ancient Egypt & Black Africa: A Student’s Handbook for the Study of Ancient Egypt in

Philosophy, Linguistics & Gender Relations. Karnak House. London

______ (2007). Ancient Egyptian and Modern Yorùbá: Phonetic Regularity. In Ankh Journal #16. Per

Ankh. Paris, France.

ODUYOYE, Modupe. (1996). Words and Meaning In Yorùbá Religion: Linguistic Connections Between

Yorùbá, Ancient Egyptian and Semitic. Karnak Publishing. London.

______ (1984). The Sons of the Gods and the Daughters of Men: An Afro-Asiatic Interpretation of Genesis

1-11. Oribis Books. Maryknoll, MY.

Page 10 of 10

PFOUMA, Oscar. (n.d.). “Aegyptio-Graphica VI. L'Abeille et le Pays.” Unpublished Article. Retrieved from:

http://www.ceae.unlugar.com/pfnouma.htm

SAAKANA, Amon Saba. (Ed.) (1991). African Origins of the Major World Religions, 2nd Edition. Karnak House

Publishers. UK.

SAMBU, Kipkoeech A. (2008). The Kalenjiin People’s Egypt Origin Legend Revisited: Was Isis Asiis? 2nd

Edition. Longhorn Publishers. Nairobi, Kenya.

______ (2011). The Misiri Legend Explored: A Linguistic Inquiry into the Kalenjiin People’s Oral Tradition of Ancient Egypt.

University of Nairobi Press. Nairobi, Kenya.

VYGUS, Mark. (2012 – July). Ancient Egyptian Dictionary. (downloadable .pdf).

Websites

Beinlich Egyptian Online Dictionary

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/er/beinlich/beinlich.html (German)

Dictionnaire ciLuba

http://www.ciyem.ugent.be/ (French)

Kalenjiin Online Dictionary

http://africanlanguages.com/kalenjin/

Kinyarwanda Dictionary

http://www.freelang.net/dictionary/kinyarwanda.php

Kiswahili

http://africanlanguages.com/swahili/index.phpl=en

Meeussen’s Proto-Bantu Reconstructions

http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/CBOLD/Docs/Meeussen.html

Online Etymological Dictionary (OED)

http://www.etymonline.com

Proto-SBB (P. Boyeldieu, P. Nougayrol & P. Palayer 2004); La liste de Swadesh pour le proto-SBB (Sara-Bongo-

Bagirmi, branche Soudan Central des langues Nilo-Sahariennes)

http://sumale.vjf.cnrs.fr/NC/Public/pdf/swadesh_SBB.pdf

Tower of Babel (TOB)

http://starling.rinet.ru/

Yorùbá Dictionary

http://www.Yorùbádictionary.com/