44 lines
75 KiB
HTML
44 lines
75 KiB
HTML
|
<!doctype html><html lang=en-us><head><meta charset=utf-8><meta name=viewport content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1"><meta name=msapplication-TileColor content="#da532c"><meta name=theme-color content="#ffffff"><meta name=author content="Angelika Jakobi"><meta property="og:title" content="Reconstructing Proto-Nubian Derivational Morphemes"><meta property="og:description" content><meta property="og:type" content="article"><meta property="og:url" content="/article/jakobi/"><meta property="og:image" content="/UNS-logo.png"><meta property="og:site_name" content="Dotawo Journal"><meta name=twitter:card content="summary_large_image"><meta name=twitter:image content="/UNS-logo.png"><meta name=twitter:title content="Reconstructing Proto-Nubian Derivational Morphemes"><meta name=twitter:description content><meta name=generator content="Hugo 0.76.5"><link rel=apple-touch-icon sizes=76x76 href=../../apple-touch-icon.png><link rel=icon type=image/png sizes=32x32 href=../../favicon-32x32.png><link rel=icon type=image/png sizes=16x16 href=../../favicon-16x16.png><link rel=manifest href=../../site.webmanifest><link rel=mask-icon href=../../safari-pinned-tab.svg color=#996561><link rel=stylesheet href=../../css/site.min.css><link rel=stylesheet href=../../css/player.min.css><title>Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages - Dotawo Journal</title><script type=text/javascript>var relPathDepth=3;</script><script defer src=../../js/sandpoints.js type=application/javascript></script></head><body><div class=header><a title="Dotawo Journal's Bibliotheke" href=../../library/BROWSE_LIBRARY.html class=bibliotheke target=_blank><img src=../../images/bibliotheke.svg></a><div class=breadcrumbs><a href=../../journal/index.html><span class=sup>D</span><i>otawo - A Journal of Nubian Studies</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
» <a href=../../issue/dotawo7/index.html><i>Dotawo 7: Comparative Northern East Sudanic Linguistics</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
<span class=mantlebar><i>» <a href=../../article/starostin/index.html>Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages</a></i></span></div></div><h1>Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages</h1><div class=crusttitle><span class=sup>article⁄R</span>estoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages</div></div><div class=grid><div class=leftcolumn><nav id=TableOfContents><ol><li><a href=#introduction>Introduction</a></li><li><a href=#100-item-swadesh-list-for-nubian-the-data>100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data</a><ol><li><a href=#i-nobiinkenuzi-dongolawi-isoglosses>I. Nobiin/Kenuzi-Dongolawi Isoglosses</a><ol><li><a href=#i1>I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses</a></li><li><a href=#i2>I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses</a></li></ol></li><li><a href=#ii-nobiin--non-kd-isoglosses>II. Nobiin / Non-K/D Isoglosses</a><ol><li><a href=#ii1>II.1. Potential K/D innovations</a></li><li><a href=#ii2-potential-synonymy-in-the-protolanguage>II.2. Potential Synonymy in the Protolanguage</a></li></ol></li><li><a href=#iii>III. Nobiin-exclusive Items</a><ol><li><a href=#iii1>III.1. Nobiin-exclusive Items with a Nubian Etymology</a></li><li><a href=#iii2>III.2. Nobiin-exclusive Items without a Nubian Etymology</a></li><li><a href=#iii3>III.3. Nobiin-exclusive Recent Borrowings</a></li></ol></li><li><a href=#analysis-of-the-data>Analysis of the Data</a></li></ol></li><li><a href=#conclusions>Conclusions</a></li></ol></nav></div><div class=rightcolumn><div class=has><span class=sup>in issues⁄</span></div><div class=afterhas><div class=article><a href=../../issue/dotawo7/index.html>Dotawo 7: Comparative Northern East Sudanic Linguistics</a></div></div></div></div><div class=content><h2 id=introduction class=hx>Introduction<a class=hpar href=#introduction>¶</a></h2><p>Although there has never been any serious disagreement on which languages constitute the Nubian family, its internal classification has been continuously refined and revised, due to such factors as the overall complexity of the processes of linguistic divergence and convergence in the “Sudanic” area of Africa; constant influx of new data that forces scholars to reevaluate former assumptions; and lack of scholarly agreement on what types of data provide the best arguments for language classification.</p><p>Traditionally, four main units have been recognized within Nubian<sup id=fnref:1><a href=#fn:1 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>1</a></sup>:</p><ul><li>Nile-Nubian, consisting of the closely related Kenuzi-Dongolawi (Mattokki–Andaandi) dialect cluster and the somewhat more distant Nobiin (= Fadidja-Mahas) cluster;</li><li>Kordofan Nubian, or Hill Nubian, consisting of numerous (and generally poorly studied, although the situation has significantly improved in the past decade) languages such as Dilling, Karko, Wali, Kadaru, etc.;</li><li>Birgid (Birked, Birged), now-extinct , formerly spoken in Darfur;</li><li>Midob (Meidob), also in Darfur.</li></ul><p>This is, for instance, the default classification model adopted in Joseph Greenbergʼs general classification of the languages of Africa,<sup id=fnref:2><a href=#fn:2 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>2</a></sup> and for a long time it was accepted in almost every piece of research on the history of Nubian languages.</p><p>More recently, however, an important and challenging hypothesis on a re-classification of Nubian has been advanced by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst.<sup id=fnref:3><a href=#fn:3 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>3</a></sup> Having conducted a detailed lexicostatistical study of a representative batch of Nubian lects, she made the important observation that, while the percentage of common matches between the two main components of Nile-Nubian is indeed very high (70%), Kenuzi-Dongolawi consistently shows a much higher percentage in common with the other three branches of Nubian t
|
|||
|
|
<a href=https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/nubian target=_blank rel=noopener><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>Ethnologue</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
and
|
|||
|
|
<a href=https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251 target=_blank rel=noopener><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>Glottolog</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
and is often quoted as an important example of convergent linguistic processes in Africa,<sup id=fnref:6><a href=#fn:6 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>6</a></sup> specialists in the field often remain undecided,<sup id=fnref:7><a href=#fn:7 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>7</a></sup> and it is concluded in the most recent handbook on African linguistics that “the internal classification of Nubian remains unclear."<sup id=fnref:8><a href=#fn:8 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>8</a></sup> One of the most vocal opponents of the new model is Claude Rilly, whose research on the reconstruction of Proto-Nubian (in conjunction with his work on the historical relations and genetic affiliation of Meroitic) and investigation into Bechhaus-Gerstʼs evidence has led him to an even stronger endorsement of the Nile-Nubian hypothesis than ever before.<sup id=fnref:9><a href=#fn:9 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>9</a></sup></p><p>While in theory there is nothing impossible about the historical scenario suggested by Bechhaus-Gerst, in practice the idea that language A, rather distantly related to language B, could undergo a serious convergent development over an approximately 1,000-year long period (from the supposed migration of Kenuzi–Dongolawi into the Nile Valley and up to the attestation of the first texts in Old Nubian, which already share most of the important features of modern Nobiin), to the point where language A can easily be misclassified even by specialists as belonging to the same group as language B, seems rather far-fetched. At the very least, it would seem to make perfect sense, before adopting it wholeheartedly, to look for alternate solutions that might yield a more satisfactory explanation to the odd deviations found in the data.</p><p>Let us look again more closely (table 2) at the lexicostatistical evidence, reducing it, for the sake of simple clarity, to percentages of matches observed in a “triangle” consisting of Kenuzi–Dongolawi, Nobiin, and one other Nubian language that is universally recognized as belonging to a very distinct and specific subbranch of the family — Midob. Comparative data are given from the older study by Bechhaus-Gerst and ,my own, more recent examination of the basic lexicon evidence.<sup id=fnref:10><a href=#fn:10 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>10</a></sup></p><table><thead><tr><th></th><th style=text-align:left>Nobiin</th><th style=text-align:left>Midob</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>K/D</strong></td><td style=text-align:left>70%</td><td style=text-align:left>54%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Nobiin</strong></td><td style=text-align:left></td><td style=text-align:left>40%</td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong>Table 2a. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob (Bechhaus-Gerst)<sup id=fnref:11><a href=#fn:11 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>11</a></sup></strong></p><table><thead><tr><th></th><th style=text-align:left>Nobiin</th><th style=text-align:left>Midob</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>K/D</strong></td><td style=text-align:left>66%</td><td style=text-align:left>57%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Nobiin</strong></td><td style=text-align:left></td><td style=text-align:left>51%</td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong>Table 2b. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob (Starostin)<sup id=fnref:12><a href=#fn:12 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>12</a></sup></strong></p><p>The significant differences in figures between two instances of lexicostatistical calculations are explained by a number of factors (slightly divergent Swadesh-type lists; different etymologizations of several items on the list; exclusion of transparent recent loans from Arabic in Starostinʼs model). Nevertheless, the obvious problem does not go away in the second model: Midob clearly shares a significantly larger number of cognates with K/D than with Nobiin — a fact that directly contradicts the K/D–Nobiin proximity on the Nubian phylogenetic tree.<sup id=fnref:13><a href=#fn:13 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>13</a></sup> The situ
|
|||
|
|
<a href=#iii><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
of the list below), but how can we distinguish retentions from innovations? If the word in question has no etymological cognates in any other Nubian language, then in most cases such a distinction is impossible.<sup id=fnref:14><a href=#fn:14 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>14</a></sup> However, if the retention or innovation in question was not accompanied by the total elimination of the root morpheme, but rather involved a semantic shift, then investigating the situation from an etymological point of view may shed some significant light on the matter. In general, the more lexicostatistical discrepancies we find between Nobiin and the rest of Nubian where the Nobiin item has a Common Nubian etymology, the better the case for the “early separation of Nobiin” hypothesis; the more “strange” words we find in Nobiin whose etymological parallels in the other Nubian languages are highly questionable or non-existent, the stronger the case for the “pre-Nobiin substrate” hypothesis.</p><p>In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed etymological analysis of the entire 100-item Swadesh wordlist for modern Nobiin.<sup id=fnref:15><a href=#fn:15 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>15</a></sup> The lexical items are classified into three groups:</p><ul><li>I. Lexicostatistical matches (i.e., cases where the exact same lexical root is preserved in the exact same Swadesh meaning, without semantic shifts) between Nobiin and K/D. These are further divided into subcategories I.1: common Nubian roots, also found in the same meaning in all or some other branches of Nubian beyond Nile-Nubian; and I.2: exclusive isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D that may be either retentions from Proto-Nubian, lost in all other branches, or Nile-Nubian innovations replacing more archaic words. In either case, these data have no bearing on the issue of Nobiinʼs uniqueness (although isoglosses in I.2 may be used to strengthen the case for Nile-Nubian).</li><li>II. Lexicostatistical matches between Nobiin and other Nubian branches (Midob, Birgid, Hill Nubian) that exclude K/D. Upon first sight, such isoglosses might seem to weaken the Nile-Nubian connection, but in reality they are not highly significant, as the K/D equivalents of the respective meanings may simply represent recent lexical innovations that took place already after the split of Nile-Nubian.</li><li>III. Nobiin-exclusive lexicostatistical items that have a common Nubian etymology (III.1) or do not have any parallels in any of the other attested Nubian languages (III.2). This is the most significant group of cases, with items in subgroup III.1 testifying in favor of the early separation hypothesis (particularly if the lexicostatistical meaning in Nobiin can be shown to be archaic), and items in subgroup III.2 favoring the substrate explanation. Needless to say, it is the items in this group that will be receiving the most extensive commentary.<sup id=fnref:16><a href=#fn:16 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>16</a></sup></li></ul><h2 id=100-item-swadesh-list-for-nubian-the-data class=hx>100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data<a class=hpar href=#100-item-swadesh-list-for-nubian-the-data>¶</a></h2><h3 id=i-nobiinkenuzi-dongolawi-isoglosses class=hx>I. Nobiin/Kenuzi-Dongolawi Isoglosses<a class=hpar href=#i-nobiinkenuzi-dongolawi-isoglosses>¶</a></h3><h4 id=i1 class=hx>I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses<a class=hpar href=#i1>¶</a></h4><ul><li>“ashes”: N <em>ùbúr-tí</em>, K/D <em>ubur-ti</em> (= M <em>úfù-dì</em>, B <em>ubur-ti</em>, etc.).</li><li>“belly”: N <em>tùː</em>, K/D <em>tuː</em> (= M <em>tə̀ː</em>, B <em>tuː</em>, etc.).</li><li>“bird”: N <em>kawar-ti</em>, K <em>kawir-te</em>, D <em>kawɪr-tɛ</em> (= M <em>àːbéd-dí</em>, B <em>kwar-ti</em>, etc.).</li><li>“bite”: N <em>àc-</em>, K/D <em>acc-</em> (= M <em>àcc-</em>, Dl <em>aɟ</em>, etc.).</li><li>“black”: N <em>úrúm</em>, K/D <em>urumm</em>- (= M <em>údí</em>, B <em>úːdè</em>, Dl <em>uri</em>, etc.). ◊ The Nil
|
|||
|
|
<a href=#i2><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section I.2</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
(or
|
|||
|
|
<a href=#i1><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>I.1</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
, if B <em>izzi-di</em> “earth” also belongs here).</li><li>“hear”: N <em>úkké-èr</em> (= ON <em>ulg-ir- ~ ulg-ar- ~ ulk-ir-</em>). ◊ Transparent derivation from <em>ulug</em> “ear.” The old verbal root “hear” is present in K/D (K <em>giɟ-ir</em>, D <em>gɪɟ-ir</em>) and Hill Nubian (Dl <em>ki-er-</em> etc.) ← PN <em>*gi(ɟ)-</em>. The situation in Old Nubian/Nobiin is seemingly innovative.</li><li>“meat”: N <em>áríɟ</em>. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent for “flesh, meat” is <em>gad-</em>, with a likely etymological parallel in M <em>kàdì</em> “meat without bones.” As for <em>áríɟ</em>, the shape of this word is reminiscent of an adjectival derivate (cf. <em>fáríɟ</em> “thick, heavyʼ), making it comparable with K <em>aːre</em>, D <em>aːrɛ</em> “inside, interior.” The most common Nubian equivalent for “meat,” however, is <em>*kosi ~ *kosu</em> → K/D <em>kusu</em>, M <em>òsò-ŋí</em>, B <em>kozi</em>, Dl <em>kwaɟe</em>, etc.</li><li>(?) “root”: N <em>ɟúː</em>. ◊ Perhaps related to D <em>ɟuː</em> “nether stone for grinding,” K <em>ɟuː</em> “hand mill” (if the original meaning was “bottom, foundation”), but the semantic link is weak. Notably, the word is not attested in ON where the equivalent for “root” is <em>dulist-</em> (no etymology). The most common form for “root” in Nubian is <em>*ir-</em> (M <em>ír-dí</em>, Dl <em>ir-tad</em>, etc.).</li><li>“say”: N <em>íːg-ìr</em> (= ON <em>ig-ir</em> “tell”). ◊ Same as D <em>iːg</em> “tell, narrate"; in N, this seems to have become the main equivalent for “say.” Other ON words with similar meanings include the verbs <em>pes-</em> (direct speech marker), <em>il-</em> (“speak,” “tell") and <em>we-</em> (very rare, probably a K/D dialectism); the latter is the common Nubian equivalent for “say” (cf. K <em>weː</em>, D <em>wɛː</em>, Dl <em>fe</em>, Kadaru <em>wei</em>, etc.).</li><li>“swim”: N <em>kúcc-ìr</em>. ◊ Not attested in ON; phonetically corresponds to D <em>kuɟ-</em> “to be above,” <em>kuɟ-ur-</em> “to place above, set above,” <em>kuc-cɛg-</em> “to mount, ride.” If the etymology is correct, the semantic development can only be unidirectional (“to be on top/on the surface” → “to swim") and the meaning in N is clearly secondary. That said, the word “swim” in general is highly unstable in Nubian languages (almost every idiom has its own equivalent).</li><li>“tree”: N <em>kóy</em> (= ON <em>koir-</em>). ◊ Comparable with D <em>koɪd</em> “a k. of jujube (Ziziphus spina-christi)""; if the etymology is correct, a secondary generalization of the meaning to “tree (gen.)” in N would perfectly agree with the fact that a much better candidate for PN “tree” is <em>*pər</em> → Dl <em>hor</em>, Dair <em>or</em>, Wali <em>fʊ́r</em>, K <em>ber</em> “wood,” D <em>bɛr</em> “wood” (the meaning “tree” in K/D, as in N, is expressed by an innovation: K <em>ɟowwi</em>, D <em>ɟoːwwɪ</em>, formerly “Acacia nilotica").</li><li>“we”: N <em>ù:</em> (= ON <em>u-</em>). ◊ ON has two 1pl pronouns: <em>u-</em> and <em>e-r-</em>, the distinction between which is still a matter of debate; Browne, Werner, and others have suggested an old differentiation along the lines of inclusivity, but there is no general consensus on which of the two pronouns may have been inclusive and which one was exclusive. In any case, the two forms are in complementary distribution in modern Nile-Nubian languages: N only has <em>ùː</em>, K/D only have <em>a-r-</em>. On the external level, K/D forms are better supported (cf. M. <em>àː-dí</em>, B <em>a-di</em>), but forms cognate with N <em>ùː</em> are also occasionally found in Hill Nubian, e.g. Wali <em>ʊ̌ʔ</em>.<sup id=fnref:27><a href=#fn:27 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>27</a></sup> Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that <em>ùː</em> may well be a PN archaism retained in N.</l
|
|||
|
|
<a href=i1><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section I.1</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
.</li><li>“hair”: N <em>šìgír-tí</em>. ◊ Not attested in ON. The form is similar to K <em>siːr</em> “hair,” but phonetic correspondences would be irregular (<em>*-g-</em> should not be deleted in K). On the contrary, D <em>dɪl-tɪ</em> “hair” perfectly corresponds to M <em>tèː-dì</em>, B <em>dill-e</em>, Dl <em>tel-ti</em>, etc. and is reconstructible as PN <em>*del-</em> or <em>*dɛl-</em>. Forms in N and K would seem to be innovations — perhaps the result of separate borrowings from a common non-Nubian source.</li><li>“lie /down/”: N <em>fìyy-ìr</em> (= ON <em>pi-</em>). ◊ No parallels in other languages.</li><li>“mountain”: N <em>mùléː</em>. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent is <em>naɟ-</em>. No parallels in other languages. Opposed to M <em>òːr</em>, B <em>kúːr</em>, Dl <em>kulí</em>, Karko <em>kúrù,</em> etc. ← PN <em>*kur-</em> (in K/D this word was replaced by borrowings from Arabic).</li><li>“name”: N <em>tàŋìs</em> (= ON <em>taŋis-</em>). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The most common Nubian equivalent for “name” is K <em>erri</em>, D <em>ɛrrɪ</em>, M <em>ə́rí</em>, B <em>erei</em>, Dl <em>or,</em> etc. ← PN <em>*əri</em>.</li><li>“new”: N <em>míríː</em> (= ON <em>miri-</em>). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “new” is K <em>eːr</em>, D <em>ɛr</em>, B <em>eːr</em>, Dl <em>er</em> ← PN <em>*ɛːr</em>.</li><li>“road”: N <em>dáwwí</em> (= ON <em>dawi- ~ dawu-</em>). ◊ Although it is likely that <em>dáwwí</em> ← <em>*dari</em> (see “rain” above), the word is hardly directly related to K <em>darub</em>, D <em>darɪb</em><sup id=fnref:28><a href=#fn:28 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>28</a></sup> since the latter is transparently borrowed from Arabic darb-. A separate early borrowing into ON from the same source cannot be excluded, but it is also possible that the word has a completely different origin.</li><li>“seed”: N <em>kóɟìr</em> (= ON <em>koɟir-</em>). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “seed” is <em>*ter-</em> (K <em>teːri</em>, D <em>tɛːrɪ</em>, Dl <em>ter-ti</em>).</li><li>“small”: N <em>kùdúːd</em>. ◊ No parallels in other languages, but the word is generally unstable throughout the entire family.</li><li>“stand”: N <em>ménɟ-ìr</em>. ◊ Attested only once in ON (as <em>meɟɟ-</em>), where the usual equivalent for “stand” is <em>noɟ(ɟ)-</em>. The corresponding K/D stem is K <em>teːb</em>, D <em>tɛːb</em>, but a better candidate for PN “stand” is the isogloss between M <em>tèkk-ér-</em> and Dl <em>tek-er</em> ← PN <em>*tek-</em>.</li><li>“stone”: N <em>kìd</em> (= ON <em>kit-</em>). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “stone” is <em>*kul-</em> (K/D <em>kulu</em>, M <em>ùllì</em>, B <em>kul-di</em>).</li><li>“tail”: N <em>ɟèlèw</em>. ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “tail” is <em>*ɛːb</em> (K <em>eːw</em>, D <em>ɛːu</em>, M <em>èːmí</em>, Dl <em>ɛb</em>, etc.). The old vocabulary of Lepsius still gives aw as an alternate equivalent,<sup id=fnref:29><a href=#fn:29 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>29</a></sup> meaning that <em>ɟèlèw</em> is clearly an innovation of unclear origin. (Possibly a concatenation of <em>*ɛːb</em> with some different first root?).</li><li>“water”: N <em>ámán</em> (= ON <em>aman-</em>). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “water” is <em>*əs-ti</em> (K <em>essi</em>, D <em>ɛssɪ</em>, M <em>ə́ːcí</em>, B <em>eɟi</em>, Dl <em>ɔti</em>, etc.). The innovative, rather than archaic, character of N <em>ámán</em> is clearly seen from the attestation of such idiomatic formations as <em>ès-kàlèː ~ às-kàlèː</em> “water wheel” and <em>màːɲ-éssí</em> “tear” (lit. “eye-water"); see also notes on the possible internal etymologization of “fish” above. The word <em>ámán</em> has frequently
|
|||
|
|
<a href=#iii2><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III.2</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
contains 20 items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see
|
|||
|
|
<a href=#iii3><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III.3</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
).</li><li>Analysis of
|
|||
|
|
<a href=iii1><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III.1</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
shows that in the majority of cases where the solitary lexicostatistical item in Nobiin does have a Common Nubian etymology, semantic comparison speaks strongly in favor of innovation, i.e. semantic shift in Nobiin: “blood” ← “fat,” “hear” ← “ear,” “meat” ← “inside,” “say” ← “tell,” “swim” ← “be on the surface,” “tree” ← “jujube"; a few of these cases may be debatable, but the overall tendency is clear. This observation in itself does not contradict the possibility of early separation of Nobiin, but the near-total lack of words that could be identified as reflexes of Proto-Nubian Swadesh equivalents of the respective meanings in this particular group clearly speaks against this historical scenario.</li><li>It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D (
|
|||
|
|
<a href=ii1><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section II.1</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
) is extremely small, especially when compared to the number of exclusive Nile-Nubian isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D. However, this observation neither contradicts nor supports the early separation hypothesis (since we are not assuming that Nobiin should be grouped together with B, M, or Hill Nubian).</li></ol><h2 id=conclusions class=hx>Conclusions<a class=hpar href=#conclusions>¶</a></h2><p>Based on this brief analysis, I suggest that rejection of the Nile-Nubian hypothesis in favor of an alternative historical scenario as proposed by Bechhaus-Gerst is not recommendable, since it runs into no less than two independent historical oddities/anomalies:</p><ol><li>assumption of a huge number of basic lexical borrowings from Kenuzi–Dongolawi into Nobiin (even including such elements as demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, typically resistant to borrowing);</li><li>assumption of total loss of numerous Proto-Nubian basic lexical roots in all branches of Nubian except for Nobiin (19–21 possible items in
|
|||
|
|
<a href=iii2><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III.2</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
). Such conservatism would be highly suspicious; it is also directly contradicted by a few examples such as “water” (q.v.) which clearly indicate that Nobiin is innovative rather than conservative.</li></ol><p>By contrast, the scenario that retains Nobiin within Nile-Nubian, but postulates the existence of a “pre-Nobiin” substrate or adstrate only assumes one historical oddity, similar to (1) above — the (presumably rapid) replacement of a large chunk of the Nobiin basic lexicon by words borrowed from an unknown substrate. However, it must be noted that the majority of words in
|
|||
|
|
<a href=iii2><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III.2</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
are nouns, rather than verbs or pronouns, and this makes the idea of massive borrowing more plausible than in the case of presumed borrowings from K/D into Nobiin.<sup id=fnref:31><a href=#fn:31 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>31</a></sup></p><p>This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a “pre-Nile- Nubian substrate” in Nobiin by Claude Rilly,<sup id=fnref:32><a href=#fn:32 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>32</a></sup> who, based on a general distributional analysis of Nubian lexicon, claims to identify no fewer than 51 Nobiin lexical items derived from that substrate, most of them belonging to the sphere of basic lexicon. It remains to be ascertained if all of Rillyʼs 51 items are truly unique in Nobiin (as I have already mentioned above, some of these Nobiin isolates might eventually turn out to be retentions from Proto-Nubian if future data on Hill Nubian and Midob happens to contain etymological parallels), but the fact that Rilly and the author of this paper arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other by means of somewhat different methods looks reassuring.</p><p>If the Nile-Nubian branch is to be reinstated, and the specific features of Nobiin are to be explained by the influence of a substrate that did not affect its closest relative (K/D), this leaves us with two issues to be resolved — (a) chronology (and geography) of linguistic events, and (b) the genetic affiliation of the “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” in question.</p><p>The aspect of chronology has previously been discussed in glottochronological terms.<sup id=fnref:33><a href=#fn:33 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>33</a></sup> In both of these sources the application of the glottochronological method as introduced by Morris Swadesh and later recalibrated by Sergei Starostin allowed to generate the following classification and datings (<strong>fig. 2</strong>):</p><p><img src=../../images/classification.png alt="Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages" title="Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages"></p><p><strong>Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages with glottochronological datings (generated by the StarlingNJ method<sup id=fnref:34><a href=#fn:34 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>34</a></sup></strong></p><p>If we take the glottochronological figures at face value, they imply the original separation of Proto-Nile-Nubian around three – three and a half thousand years ago, and then a further split between the ancestors of modern Nobiin and K/D around two to two and a half thousand years ago. Interestingly enough, these events are chronologically correlatable with the two main events in the history of Nile-Nubian languages according to Bechhaus-Gerst, but not quite in the way that she envisions it: her “early separation of Nobiin” becomes the early separation of Nobiin and K/D, and her “later separation of K/D” becomes “final split between Nobiin and K/D.” The interaction between Nobiin and the mysterious “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” must have therefore taken place some time in the 1st millennium CE (after the split with K/D but prior to the appearance of the first written texts in Old Nubian). Nevertheless, at this point I would like to refrain from making any definitive conclusions on probable dates and migration routes, given the possibility of alternate glottochronological models.</p><p>The other issue — linguistic identification of the “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” — is even more interesting, since its importance goes far beyond Nubian history, and its successful resolution may have direct implications for the reconstruction of the linguistic history of Africa in general. Unfortunately, at this moment one can only speculate about what that substrate might have been, or even about whether it is reasonable to speak about a single substrate or a variety of idioms that may have influenced the early independent development of Nobiin.</p><p>Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) simi
|
|||
|
|
<a href=iii2><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section III.2</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as:</p><ul><li><em>túllí</em> “smoke” — cf. Nuer <em>toːl</em>, Dinka <em>tol</em> “smoke";</li><li><em>kìd</em> “stone” — cf. Luo <em>kidi</em>, Shilluk <em>kit</em>, etc. “stone";</li><li><em>ɟèlèw</em> “tail” — cf. Nuer <em>ɟual</em>, Dinka <em>yɔl</em>, Mabaan <em>yilɛ</em>, etc. “tail.”</li></ul><p>Additionally, Nobiin <em>múg</em> “dog” is similar to East Nilotic <em>*-ŋɔk-</em><sup id=fnref:38><a href=#fn:38 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>38</a></sup> and Kalenjin <em>*ŋoːk</em>,<sup id=fnref:39><a href=#fn:39 class=footnote-ref role=doc-noteref>39</a></sup> assuming the possibility of assimilation (<em>*ŋ- → m-</em> before a following labial vowel in Nobiin). These parallels, although still sparse, constitute by far the largest single group of matches between the “pre-Nile Nubian substrate” and a single linguistic family (Nilotic), making this line of future research seem promising for the future — although they neither conclusively prove the Nilotic nature of this substrate, nor eliminate the possibility of several substrate layers with different affiliation.</p><p>In any case, the main point of this paper is not so much to shed light on the origin of substrate elements in Nobiin as it is to show that pure lexicostatistics, when applied to complex cases of language relationship, may reveal anomalies that can only be resolved by means of a careful etymological analysis of the accumulated evidence. It is entirely possible that advanced character-based phylogenetic methods might offer additional insight into this problem, but ultimately it all comes down to resolving the problem by means of manual searching for cognates, albeit without forgetting about statistical grounding of the conclusions.</p><p>In this particular case, I believe that the evidence speaks strongly in favor of reinstating the Nile-Nubian clade comprising both Nobiin and Kenuzi-Dongolawi, although it must be kept in mind that a common linguistic ancestor and a common ethnic ancestor are not necessarily the same thing (e.g., the linguistic conclusion does not at all exclude the possibility that early speakers of Kenuzi-Dongolawi did shift to Proto-Nile-Nubian from some other language — not necessarily Nubian in origin itself).</p><section class=footnotes role=doc-endnotes><hr><ol><li id=fn:1 role=doc-endnote><p>Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 85. <a href=#fnref:1 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:2 role=doc-endnote><p>Greenberg, <em>The Languages of Africa,</em> p. 84. <a href=#fnref:2 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:3 role=doc-endnote><p>Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”; Bechhaus-Gerst, <em>Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal</em>; Bechhaus-Gerst, <em>The (Hi)story of Nobiin</em>. <a href=#fnref:3 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:4 role=doc-endnote><p>Bechhaus-Gerst, <em>Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal,</em> p. 88. <a href=#fnref:4 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:5 role=doc-endnote><p>Bechhaus-Gerst, <em>The (Hi)story of Nobiin,</em> p. 22. <a href=#fnref:5 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:6 role=doc-endnote><p>E.g., Heine & Kuteva, “Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.” <a href=#fnref:6 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:7 role=doc-endnote><p>E.g., Jakobi, “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” <a href=#fnref:7 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:8 role=doc-endnote><p>Güldemann, “Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa,” p. 283. <a href=#fnref:8 class=footno
|
|||
|
|
B — Birgid;
|
|||
|
|
D — Dongolawi;
|
|||
|
|
Dl — Dilling;
|
|||
|
|
K — Kenuzi;
|
|||
|
|
K/D — Kenuzi-Dongolawi;
|
|||
|
|
M — Midob;
|
|||
|
|
N — Nobiin;
|
|||
|
|
ON — Old Nubian;
|
|||
|
|
PN — Proto-Nubian. <a href=#fnref:13 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:14 role=doc-endnote><p>One possible argument in this case would be to rely on data from external comparison. Thus, if we agree that Nubian belongs to the Northern branch of the Eastern Sudanic family, with the Nara language and the Taman group as its closest relatives (Rilly, <em>Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique</em>; Starostin, <em>Jazyki Afriki</em>), then, in those cases where Nobiin data is opposed to the data of all other Nubian languages, it is the word that finds better etymological parallels in Nara and Tama that shouud be logically regarded as the Proto-Nubian equivalent. However, in order to avoid circularity or the additional problems that one runs into while investigating chronologically distant language relationship, I intentionally restrict the subject matter of this paper to internal Nubian data only. <a href=#fnref:14 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:15 role=doc-endnote><p>Reasons of volume, unfortunately, do not allow to go into sufficient details on many of the more complicated cases. A subset of 50 words, representing the most stable (on average) Swadesh items, has been analyzed in detail and published (in Russian) in Starostin, <em>Jazyki Afriki,</em> pp. 224–95. A complete 100-item wordlist reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, with detailed notes on phonetics, semantics, and distribution, is scheduled to be added to the already available annotated 100-item wordlists for ten Nubian languages, published as part of
|
|||
|
|
<a href=http://starling.rinet.ru/new100 target=_blank rel=noopener><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>The Global Lexicostatistical Database</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
. <a href=#fnref:15 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:16 role=doc-endnote><p>Note on the data sources: for reasons of volume, I do not include all available data in the etymologies. Nobiin (N) forms are quoted based on Werner’s <em>Grammatik des Nobiin</em>; if the word is missing from Wernerʼs relatively short glossary, additional forms may be drawn upon from either older sources, such as Lepsius’s <em>Nubische Grammatik</em>, or newer ones, e.g., Khalil’s <em>Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache</em> (unfortunately, Khalilʼs dictionary is unusable as a lexicostatistical source due to its unwarranted omission of Arabic borrowings and conflation of various early sources). The ancient forms of Old Nubian (ON) are taken from Gerald Browneʼs <em>Old Nubian Dictionary.</em></p><p>Data on the other languages are taken from the most comprehensive published dictionaries, vocabularies, and/or wordlists and are quoted as follows: Kenuzi (K) — Hofmann, <em>Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis</em>; Dongolawi (D) — Armbruster, <em>Dongolese Nubian</em>; Midob (M) — Werner, <em>Tìdn-áal</em>; Birgid (B) — Thelwall, “A Birgid Vocabulary List”; Dilling (Dl) — Kauczor, <em>Die Bergnubische Sprache</em>. Hill Nubian data other than Dilling are used sparingly, only when it is necessary to specify the distribution of a given item; occasional forms from such languages as Kadaru, Debri, Karko, and Wali are quoted from wordlists published in Thelwall, “Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka” and Krell, <em>Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguisyic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups</em>.</p><p>Proto-Nubian forms are largely based on the system of correspondences that was originally laid out in Marianne Bechhaus-Gerstʼs reconstruction of Proto-Nubian phonology in “Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen,” but with a number of emendations introduced in Starostin, <em>Jazyki Afriki</em>. Since this study is more concerned with issues of cognate distribution than those of phonological reconstruction and phonetic interpretation, I will refrain from reproducing full tables of phonetic correspondences, but brief notes on peculiarities of reflexes of certain PN phonemes in certain Nubian languages will be given for those cases where etymological cognacy is not obvious or is disputable from the standard viewpoint of the neogrammarian paradigm. <a href=#fnref:16 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:17 role=doc-endnote><p>Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 94 lists this as one of two examples illustrating the alleged archaicity of Old Nubian and Nobiin in retaining original PN <em>*g-</em>, together with ON <em>gouwi</em> “shield.” However, in both of these cases K/D also show <em>k-</em> (cf. K/D <em>karu</em> “shield”), which goes against regular correspondences for PN <em>*g-</em> (which should yield K/D <em>g-</em>, see “red”), meaning that it is Nobiin and not the other languages that actually have an innovation here. <a href=#fnref:17 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:18 role=doc-endnote><p>Reconstruction somewhat uncertain, but initial <em>*ŋ-</em> is fairly clearly indicated by the correspondences; see detailed discussion in Starostin, <em>Jazyki Afriki,</em> pp. 56–57. <a href=#fnref:18 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:19 role=doc-endnote><p>Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 93 counts this as an additional slice of evidence for early separation of N, but since this is an innovation rather than an archaism, there are no arguments to assert that the innovation did not take place recently (already after the separation of N from K/D). <a href=#fnref:19 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<a href=#i1><span class=sup>www⁄</span><i>section I.1</i></a>
|
|||
|
|
, but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss. <a href=#fnref:24 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:25 role=doc-endnote><p>Werner. <em>Grammatik des Nobiin,</em> p. 357. <a href=#fnref:25 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:26 role=doc-endnote><p>The meanings “sand; dust” are also indicated as primary for Nobiin <em>iskid ~ iskit</em> in Khalil, <em>Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache,</em> p. 48. <a href=#fnref:26 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:27 role=doc-endnote><p>Krell. <em>Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups</em>, p. 40. <a href=#fnref:27 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:28 role=doc-endnote><p>As per Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 93. <a href=#fnref:28 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:29 role=doc-endnote><p>Lepsius, <em>Nubische Grammatik,</em> p. 274. <a href=#fnref:29 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:30 role=doc-endnote><p>Where <em>*-n</em> is a productive plural marker, cf. Bechhaus-Gerst, “Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen,” p. 109. <a href=#fnref:30 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:31 role=doc-endnote><p>For a good typological analogy from a relatively nearby region, cf. the contact situation between Northern Songhay languages and Berber languages as described, e.g., in Souag, <em>Grammatical Contact in the Sahara.</em> <a href=#fnref:31 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:32 role=doc-endnote><p>Rilly, <em>Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,</em> pp. 285–289, <a href=#fnref:32 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:33 role=doc-endnote><p>Starostin, <em>Jazyki Afriki,</em> pp. 34–36; Vasilyey & Starostin, “Leksikostatisticheskaja klassifikatsija nubijskikh jazykov.” <a href=#fnref:33 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:34 role=doc-endnote><p>For a detailed description of the StarlingNJ distance-based method of phylogenetic classification and linguistic dating, see Kassian, “Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus).” <a href=#fnref:34 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:35 role=doc-endnote><p>Rilly, <em>Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,</em> p. 285. <a href=#fnref:35 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:36 role=doc-endnote><p>Rilly, “Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan,” pp. 1181–1182. <a href=#fnref:36 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:37 role=doc-endnote><p>Thelwall, “Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka,” pp. 273–274. <a href=#fnref:37 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:38 role=doc-endnote><p>Vossem, <em>The Eastern Nilotes,</em> p. 354. <a href=#fnref:38 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li><li id=fn:39 role=doc-endnote><p>Rottland, <em>Die Südnilotischen Sprachen,</em> p. 390. <a href=#fnref:39 class=footnote-backref role=doc-backlink>↩︎</a></p></li></ol></section></div><footer><a class=logolink title="built by Sandpoints" href=https://sandpoints.org><div class=sandpointlogo><span class=sandpointF>ß</span>
|
|||
|
|
<span class=sandpointN>•</span>
|
|||
|
|
<span class=sandpointC>:</span></div></a></footer></body></html>
|