| Revision as of 05:53, 8 November 2011 editWalrasiad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,512 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:05, 8 November 2011 edit undoWalrasiad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,512 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ] (]) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | ] (]) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| To allow others to participate, I have moved my reply to ]. You might wish to replicate your reply above there, if you want the sequence to make sense. ] (]) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The Serer "oral history" did not name "Senegal". European slave traders did. It was the slave traders who put the name "Senegal" down on their maps. And it was the maps drawn by the slave traders that were used by the colonial authorities. And it was the name used by the colonial authorities that the modern liberated republic uses. So, yes, the term "Senegal" has come from a line of transission, the written record of which starts with Cadamosto. He must have picked up the term "Senegal" from somewhere. And not being in contact with the Serer, and the Serer not having anything to do with that river at that time, it was certainly ''not'' from the Serer. So again I ask, what is this "evidence" that Diop is citing on how Cadamosto acquired the name? Because that is the only point that needs to be proven here. And don't pull some nonsense about the Serer nomenclature going through the Wolofs, because the Portuguese sources of the time (Barros, Gois) were quite explicit and unequivocal that the Wolofs called the river the "Ovedech" or "Sonedech", and ''not'' the "Senegal" (P.S. - which wasn't even written as "Senegal", but rather "Senega" or "Sanaga" for over a hundred years - the "L" was a later addition; so much for the "O Gal" part of your theory). | |||
| Not sure what the 1446 clash has to do with anything. The Niominka who killed the Portuguese with poisoned arrows are in the Saloum-Diombos-Banjal rivers, not the Senegal river. I very much doubt they paused the battle for conversation about rivers half a world away - not that it mattered if they sat down for tea and crumpets and idle talk mid-battle, since none of the Portuguese survived to report it anyway. | |||
| So please provide your evidence of etymological transmission, or I am going to have to remove your statements from both the Senegal River and Senegal pages. ] (]) 05:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:05, 8 November 2011
Senegal River
In the article on the Senegal River you inserted a statement:
" The most credible theory which is backed by archaeological, migration and historical evidence is that, the name "Senegal" derives from the Serer people - "
The most credible theory? By whose judgment? I have never seen this assertion in the literature, so I am curious exactly who judged it "the most credible theory".
I am also curious as to how the "Senegal River", a name which was first jotted down by 15th C. Italian & Portuguese sources, when the Serer were nowhere near the area (and, indeed, a time when there was no communication between the Serer and the Portuguese), is "backed by archaeological, migration and historical evidence", which seems very bizarre assertion. Did you find an ancient marble slab in Italy indicating the name of the river? On what grounds are you perpretating this statement? Walrasiad (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"Nowhere the area?" Where were they then in Mars having a cup tea and some bolo rei with Prince Henry the Navigator? Yes! The Serer people were not in communication with the Portuguse but I suggest you take a look at where this statement was made. In "etymology" with respect to the Wolof account. I suggest you look at the sources especially Diop etc. The Serer people know their history, language, religion and land better than any 15th century European slave trader like Alvise Cadamosto and his ilk, who hardly was in contact with them. Although the Portuguese tried to make contact with the Serers in 1446, almost all the adult members of that ship succumbed to Serer poisoned arrows. Serer Country is very verse and their language is embedded in the Wolof language who were in contact with the Portuguese. Take a look at the sources and where such account was made rather than coming here with your typical arrogant tone.
Tamsier (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
To allow others to participate, I have moved my reply to Talk:Sénégal River. You might wish to replicate your reply above there, if you want the sequence to make sense. Walrasiad (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)