Talk:Negus/Archive 1

Negarit
As Codex Sinaiticus pointed out "negarit" is most likely from "NGR" ("Menager") and not related to "Negus" (see Llywrch's talk page for my explanation and derivation). Nevertheless, it has popped up in a few verifiable sources and should probably at least be mentioned somewhere in the page. I'm pretty certain the two terms are unrelated, but I don't have a source for this, so if someone could find such a source, we could include a little snippet at the end (or somewhere in the main text) that the two were thought to be connected by some earlier authors, but that it's now known not to be the case. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Most Amharic dictionaries list derived forms under the verbal root, and the main one I have (Amsalu Aklilu) lists ነጋሪት negarit "ceremonial drum" under ነገረ näggärä "tell" (NGR) as I would expect... There are a number of Indo-European languages and groups where intervocalic -S- or -Z- etc. developed into later -R- (like Latin, Germanic, Greek, even in English you have older forms like 'froren' alongside 'frozen') but such a mutation of consonants is unknown in Ge'ez morphology, where consonants provide the base meaning and tended to be preserved much more distinctly over the millennia.... If you find a source it would be interesting; I think I have read somewhere that the 'negarit' is sometimes translated as "royal drum" or also the royal official who proclaims the approach of the king, but never seen any source making an etymological connection with Negus... Regards,  (Mr.) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: if you're looking for a common word that is from the same root, one is mengist = "kingdom" or "government"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen at least two authorities make the connection between "negus" & "negarit". Unfortunately, I can't find my notes or remember their names, so I can't say if their opinions are based on older research -- or that they may be repeating a folk etymology. However, the similarity in sounds may help explain why NGS came to be favored over MLK as the South Semitic word for "king". -- llywrch 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

provinces versus kingdoms
As the article itself as well as the title "Neguse negest" (King of Kings ie. Emperor ie. ruler of an Empire) indicate, the epithets "province" and "prince" or "governor" are inappropiate uses to describe the relationship between the various post-Axumite Abyssinian kingdoms which I suspect is designed to give a false impression of perpetual structural unity. This contradicts the meaning of the titles as well as the history being decribed in itself which depicts rival kingdoms (each with their own king) representing their own geopolitical and socioeconomical ambitions and at times even ethnicity and culture vying for hegemony over- or independence from-, the geographically shifting realm erroniously referred to in singular as 'one' reign of Abyssinia or Ethiopia.

This is not to deny that there is a huge level of commonality between the kingdoms, as manifested in their shared history and culture. Neither should it be denied that they indeed at times were even politically "unified" usually under dominance of one king over the others into a conglomerate "Empire" which even produced considerable foreign evidence from their many encounters and dealings. But it should also be taken into account that a) certain kings and kingdoms in their contacts with foreigners may have represented themselves as rulers of much larger realms than what they truly commanded and b) it may not have been so easy for foreigners to independently and accurately identify the political divisions that prevailed within a region as isolated and culturally homogenous as a Habesha christian island, well contrasted from it's muslim cushitic neighbors as Abyssinia was.

Nevertheless, it is high time to revise the erroneous representation of a perpetual multimillenial political unity of 'one' reign in the nationalist Ethiopian doctrine authored by the proponents of the Ethiopian states irrevocable (almost "holy") unity and its ignorant foreign references. It is in everybodies interest to avoid politicized descriptions of history and instead we need to begin to distinguish what is a kingdom/state and what is a cultural realm/region made up of several of the former which vyed for and at times succeeded to consolidate their dominance over such realm. (unsigned)


 * It would be great if you would spend less time talking about what you "suspect", and calling for massive revisionism on that basis, and more time producing any verifiable sources and citations (if there are any) that might back up your "suspicions"... Editing Wikipedia has become a whole lot simpler in the ten months or so since the Siegenthaler controversy - in the long run, it does no one any good to invent and push "new" arguments of our own on any page on any subject, just show the published sources if you got 'em, so that they can be properly attributed to who exactly is saying these things, or don't bother...


 * "...they cannot shake the truth from its place, even if they attempt to make others believe it." - HIM Autobiography, Preface ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess what you're saying is if it is published it is as solid a truth as your belief that you exist (especially if it is confirmed by a ferenji...I suspect tsk tsk). So do you mind if I cite Donald Duck to dispute Ethiopia's claim to perpetual trimillenial unity and continuity as an Empire? Or perhaps I should just publish a comic book titled "ye ahyoch tarik wushet new" and cite myself as a source? What I'm trying to say is that publishing something does not really say much and the sources

which you refer to which have been cited so far are far from canonical. Along with those that present these "sources" with their own interpretation (typically embellished with "peacocks and weasle-words"). Unfortunately for the sensitive mind that was reared in Ethiopian schools of indoctrination, these sources do NOT present infallible, absolute truths. They can stand to be questioned and citing a source is not the only way or even a very effective way of bringing logic and reality to myth and fable.


 * No no no, I'm not saying that anything that is a published source is believable... I'm just saying that without a published source, for wikipedia purposes on any contested issues, it's not just unbelievable, it's inadmissible. If there is a published source (other than yourself - please read WP:OR carefully, also WP:VER), that still doesn't automatically make it "believable", but at least it means it can be cited in the form "so-and-so said such-and-such" (for what that's worth)... Get it?  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Title abolished
The article should state somewhere the fact that Ras Tafari Makonnen (the future Emperor Haile Selassie) was, during the reign of his female predecessor, the last to receive the title Negus. When he became Emperor, he abolished the title and made it clear that it would never be granted again. Tom129.93.17.213 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)