UnionForNubianStudies/Dotawo
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity

added many more exx to jakobi

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
vincentwj 2020-12-07 13:53:02 +01:00
parent c45feaa3a6
commit 3c68c936c4
1 changed files with 334 additions and 129 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

463
content/article/jakobi.md
View file

@ -1,22 +1,22 @@
---
title: "Nubian Verb Extensions and Some Nyimang Correspondences"
title: "Nubian Verb Extensions and Some Nyima Correspondences"
author: "Angelika Jakobi"
abstract: "Having a historical-comparative approach this paper is concerned with the reconstruction of some Proto-Nubian derivational morphemes comprising two causatives, two applicatives, and two suffixes deriving verbal plural stems, as well as a now defunct causative prefix. When discussing applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages, it is argued that they involve converbs, i.e., dependent verbs, which in Old Nubian and Nobiin are marked by the suffix *-a.* This verbal suffix is considered to be distinct from the homophonous predicate marker *-a* which occurs as a clitic on various other hosts. The paper also points out that some of the Nubian verb extensions correspond to Nyimang (mostly Ama) extensions, thus providing strong evidence of the genetic relationship between Nubian and Nyimang. Perhaps the most striking evidence of Nubian–Ama relations and the coherence of the Nilo-Saharan phylum as a whole is provided by the archaic Nilo-Saharan **ɪ-.* The reflexes of this prefix in Nubian and Ama, along with the archaic Nubian prefix **m-,* which serves as verbal negation marker, supports Dimmendaal’s hypothesis that these languages have undergone a restructuring process from originally prefixing to predominantly suffixing languages."
keywords: "Nubian, comparative linguistics, Nyimang, North Eastern Sudanic"
abstract: "Having a historical-comparative approach this paper is concerned with the reconstruction of some Proto-Nubian derivational morphemes comprising two causatives, two applicatives, and two suffixes deriving verbal plural stems, as well as a now defunct causative prefix. When discussing applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages, it is argued that they involve converbs, i.e., dependent verbs, which in Old Nubian and Nobiin are marked by the suffix *-a.* This verbal suffix is considered to be distinct from the homophonous predicate marker *-a* which occurs as a clitic on various other hosts. The paper also points out that some of the Nubian verb extensions correspond to Nyima (mostly Ama) extensions, thus providing strong evidence of the genetic relationship between Nubian and Nyima. Perhaps the most striking evidence of Nubian–Ama relations and the coherence of the Nilo-Saharan phylum as a whole is provided by the archaic Nilo-Saharan **ɪ-.* The reflexes of this prefix in Nubian and Ama, along with the archaic Nubian prefix **m-,* which serves as verbal negation marker, supports Dimmendaal’s hypothesis that these languages have undergone a restructuring process from originally prefixing to predominantly suffixing languages."
keywords: "Nubian, comparative linguistics, Nyima, North Eastern Sudanic"
---
# Introduction {#1}
Since Greenberg’s classification of the African languages there is agreement that the Nubian languages belong to East Sudanic, the largest subgroup of the Nilo-Saharan phylum.[^1] According to Bender, Dimmendaal, and Blench, East Sudanic (also known as Eastern Sudanic) is divided into a northern and a southern branch.[^2] The northern branch comprises Nubian as well as the Taman languages of Darfur and Wadai, Nyimang[^5] of the Nuba Mountains, and Nara on the Sudan–Eritrean border. Rilly, in his historical-comparative study, argues that the extinct language of the Meroitic Empire is also part of the northern branch.[^6] The southern branch consists of Berta, Jebel, Daju, Temeinian, Surmic, and Nilotic.[^7] This subclassification is, however, disputed. Ehret and Starostin, for instance, suggest that Ama (referred to by the term Nyimang) is genetically closer to Temeinian and hence part of the southern – rather than the northern – branch of East Sudanic.[^8]
Since Greenberg’s classification of the African languages there is agreement that the Nubian languages belong to East Sudanic, the largest subgroup of the Nilo-Saharan phylum.[^1] According to Bender, Dimmendaal, and Blench, East Sudanic (also known as Eastern Sudanic) is divided into a northern and a southern branch.[^2] The northern branch comprises Nubian as well as the Taman languages of Darfur and Wadai, the Nyima languages[^5] of the Nuba Mountains, and Nara on the Sudan–Eritrean border. Rilly, in his historical-comparative study, argues that the extinct language of the Meroitic Empire is also part of the northern branch.[^6] The southern branch consists of Berta, Jebel, Daju, Temeinian, Surmic, and Nilotic.[^7] This subclassification is, however, disputed. Ehret and Starostin, for instance, suggest that Ama (referred to by the term Nyimang) is genetically closer to Temeinian and hence part of the southern – rather than the northern – branch of East Sudanic.[^8]
[^1]: This paper is partly based on data drawn from published sources, partly collected in collaboration with mother tongue speakers. I am deeply indebted to the unflagging commitment of El-Shafie El-Guzuuli who contributed examples of Andaandi, to Ali Ibrahim of Tagle, Ahmed Hamdan of Karko, and Ishaag Hassan of Midob. Isaameddiin Hasan provided advice on Nobiin.
[^2]: Bender, The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay; Bender, “Nilo-Saharan"; Dimmendaal, “Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk Diaspora”; ![Blench, this issue](article:blench.md).
[^5]: In the present paper I will use the term Nyimang to refer to the language group comprising Ama, Mandal, and Afitti. Afitti is also known as Dinik (Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”).
[^5]: In the present paper I will use the term Nyima to refer to the language group comprising Ama, Mandal, and Afitti. Afitti is also known as Dinik (Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”).
[^6]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*
[^7]: For a recent sub-classification of East Sudanic, see Dimmendaal et al., “Linguistic Features and Typologies in Languages Commonly Referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’.”
[^8]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* p. 141; Starostin, “Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I.” Both Ehret and Starostin use Ama (but no Afitti) data.
In contrast to Ehret’s and Starostin’s subgrouping, the present paper will provide evidence of some verb extensions shared by Nyimang and the Nubian languages. They demonstrate the genetic links between these languages and therefore support Bender’s and Dimmendaal’s classification of Nyimang as a member of the northern East Sudanic subgroup. Although Ehret, in his historical-comparative study of Nilo-Saharan languages tries to identify verb extensions, too, his claimed reconstructions lack corroborating evidence because he does not provide contrastive examples of extended and unextended verb stems.[^11]
In contrast to Ehret’s and Starostin’s subgrouping, the present paper will provide evidence of some verb extensions shared by Nyima and the Nubian languages. They demonstrate the genetic links between these languages and therefore support Bender’s and Dimmendaal’s classification of Nyima as a member of the northern East Sudanic subgroup. Although Ehret, in his historical-comparative study of Nilo-Saharan languages tries to identify verb extensions, too, his claimed reconstructions lack corroborating evidence because he does not provide contrastive examples of extended and unextended verb stems.[^11]
[^11]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* chap. 5.
@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ According to Rilly, the Nubian language family has two main branches, Nile Nubia
[^fig1]: Adapted from Rilly, “The Linguistic Position of Meroitic.”
**Map** below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyimang group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan.
**Map** below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyima group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan.
![The northern Nuba Mountains](../static/images/jakobi2.png "The northern Nuba Mountains")
@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ According to Rilly, the Nubian language family has two main branches, Nile Nubia
[^13]: I would like to thank the cartographer at the Institute of African Studies and Egyptology, University of Cologne, Monika Feinen, for designing the map.
Probably due to frequent contact between speakers of Nyimang and speakers of Kordofan Nubian languages, there is some lexical evidence of sound–meaning correspondences between these languages. Considering i) the close phonetic similarities between the Ama, Mandal, and Afitti items on the one hand and Kordofan Nubian items on the other; and ii) the less close resemblance between Ama, Mandal, and Afitti and the corresponding Nile Nubian (NN) items, Rottland and Jakobi have interpreted this constellation as evidence of lexical borrowing, with Kordofan Nubian as the source of the borrowings.[^14] **Table 1** and **Table 2** illustrate this point: **Table 1** shows that the phonetic similarities between the Ama and Mandal items and their Proto-Kordofan Nubian (PKN) counterparts are closer than those between Ama, Mandal, and the corresponding Nile Nubian items.
Probably due to frequent contact between speakers of Nyima and speakers of Kordofan Nubian languages, there is some lexical evidence of sound–meaning correspondences between these languages. Considering i) the close phonetic similarities between the Ama, Mandal, and Afitti items on the one hand and Kordofan Nubian items on the other; and ii) the less close resemblance between Ama, Mandal, and Afitti and the corresponding Nile Nubian (NN) items, Rottland and Jakobi have interpreted this constellation as evidence of lexical borrowing, with Kordofan Nubian as the source of the borrowings.[^14] **Table 1** and **Table 2** illustrate this point: **Table 1** shows that the phonetic similarities between the Ama and Mandal items and their Proto-Kordofan Nubian (PKN) counterparts are closer than those between Ama, Mandal, and the corresponding Nile Nubian items.
[^14]: Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains.”
@ -63,9 +63,9 @@ Examples of the close sound and meaning correspondences between Afitti and Proto
**Table 2. Afitti – PKN correspondences**
The striking Ama and Afitti similarities with the corresponding Kordofan Nubian items also indicate that borrowing into the Nyimang languages has occurred rather recently, after Kordofan Nubian had split off from the other branches of the Nubian family.
The striking Ama and Afitti similarities with the corresponding Kordofan Nubian items also indicate that borrowing into the Nyima languages has occurred rather recently, after Kordofan Nubian had split off from the other branches of the Nubian family.
However, the correspondences between the verb extensions in Nubian and Ama (**Table 3**) which are the focus of this paper, suggest a different historical interpretation, namely as evidence of their remote genetic relationship. This assumption, which will be corroborated in detail below, is based on the correspondences between the Proto-Nubian causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix, which is comparable to the Ama causative *a*-prefix, and the Proto-Nubian causative suffix *\*-(i)g-ir,* corresponding to the Ama directional/causative suffix *-ɪg ~ -ɛg.* In addition, there are two pairs of phonetically and semantically very similar verb extensions, which have a limited distribution in the Nubian group. They comprise the Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *-in* vs. the Ama dual *-ɪn,* as well as Midob *-íd* vs. Ama *-ɪ́d̪.* Another set of corresponding extensions (not shown in Table 3) includes the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural *-er* as well as the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object suffix *-ir* or *-(i)r-ir* and the Nyimang distributional suffix *-r.*
However, the correspondences between the verb extensions in Nubian and Ama (**Table 3**) which are the focus of this paper, suggest a different historical interpretation, namely as evidence of their remote genetic relationship. This assumption, which will be corroborated in detail below, is based on the correspondences between the Proto-Nubian causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix, which is comparable to the Ama causative *a*-prefix, and the Proto-Nubian causative suffix *\*-(i)g-ir,* corresponding to the Ama directional/causative suffix *-ɪg ~ -ɛg.* In addition, there are two pairs of phonetically and semantically very similar verb extensions, which have a limited distribution in the Nubian group. They comprise the Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *-in* vs. the Ama dual *-ɪn,* as well as Midob *-íd* vs. Ama *-ɪ́d̪.* Another set of corresponding extensions (not shown in Table 3) includes the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural *-er* as well as the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object suffix *-ir* or *-(i)r-ir* and the Ama distributional suffix *-r.*
| Nubian | | Ama | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Ama, too, has a rather rich inventory of derivational extensions.[^32] It has su
[^32]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages” and ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md).
The Nyimang data are drawn from Stevenson’s survey of the Nuba Mountain languages, Tucker & Bryan’s grammar sketch of the Nyimang group, which is based on Stevenson’s fieldwork data, and additional work by Rottland, Jakobi, Stevenson, and Norton.[^33]
The Ama data are drawn from Stevenson’s survey of the Nuba Mountain languages, Tucker & Bryan’s grammar sketch of the Nyima group, which is based on Stevenson’s fieldwork data, and additional work by Rottland, Jakobi, Stevenson, and Norton.[^33]
[^33]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages"; Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* pp. 243-252; Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains"; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik”; ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md).
@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ The Old Nubian *-(i)r*-extension has two variants, *-ar* and *-ur,* which are of
[^40]: The examples are drawn from Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary.*
| | Nouns | | Verbs | |
| Old Nubian | Nouns | | Verbs | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (1) | ⲟⲩⲗⲅ | “ear” | ⲟⲩⲗⲅ-ⲣ̄ | “listen” |
| (2) | ⲕⲓⲧⲧ | “garment” | ⲕⲓⲧ-ⲣ̄ | “clothe” |
@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ The ditransitive construction derived by the causative *-(i)r*-extension on the
[^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* ex. ??? (gr 2.4).
{{< gloss "(7)" >}}
{r} Old Nubian
{r} **Old Nubian**
{r} ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲟⲛⲱ ϣⲟⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗⲓⲣⲉⲥⲟ
{g} *ai-k-onō*,[1sg-acc-refl]({sc})|*šok-ka*,book-[acc]({sc})|*koull-ir-e-so*,learn-[caus-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm]({sc})|
{r} “Teach me the book”
@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ The Nobiin *-(i)r*-extension can derive transitive and ditransitive stems when i
[^44]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 152.
| | | | | |
| Nobiin | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (8) | karj-e | “ripen” [itr]({sc}) | karj-ir-e | “cook” [tr]({sc}) |
| (9) | naaf-e | “be hidden” [itr]({sc}) | naaf-ir-e | “hide” [tr]({sc}) |
@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Unlike the Old Nubian and Nobiin *-(i)r*-extension, which can be attached to int
[^47]: Examples drawn from Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” pp. 132–133, 215.
| | | | | |
| Mattokki | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (24) | arub | “be folded up” [itr]({sc}) | arb-ir | “fold up” [tr]({sc}) |
| (25) | urub | “have a hole” [itr]({sc}) | urb-ur | “make a hole” [tr]({sc}) |
@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ It is conceivable that the loss of morphological meaning observed with *-(i)r* h
[^50]: Examples from Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 132.
{{< gloss "(29)" >}}
{r} Mattokki
{r} **Mattokki**
{g} *essi*,water|*aa-was-in*,[prog]({sc})-boil-[neut.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “the water is boiling”
{{< /gloss >}}
@ -248,39 +248,47 @@ It is conceivable that the loss of morphological meaning observed with *-(i)r* h
{r} “boil the water!”
{{< /gloss >}}
As in Mattokki, Andaandi *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* is attached to intransitive verb bases deriving transitive stems.[^52] Both the simple *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* and the reduplicated extension *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi* are attested on these bases.
As in Mattokki, Andaandi *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* is attached to intransitive verb bases deriving transitive stems. Both the simple *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* and the reduplicated extension *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi* are attested on these bases.[^52]
[^52]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §3670ff and §3722.
[^52]: Examples from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§3670–76 and §3722; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian. A Lexicon,* p. 44.
(31)
| Andaandi | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (31) | kuɲ | “sink, get buried” [itr]({sc}) | kuɲ-ur | “bury” [tr]({sc}) |
| (32) | aag | “squat, sit” [itr]({sc}) | ag-iddi | “cause to sit, seat” [tr]({sc}) |
| (33) | dab | “disappear” [itr]({sc}) | dab-ir | “cause to disappear” [tr]({sc})|
(32)
{{< gloss "(34)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi**
{g} *tɛn*,[3sg.gen]({sc})|*dungi*,money|*dab-os-ko-n*,disappear-[pfv-pt-3sg]({sc})|
{r} “his/her money has disappeared”
{{< /gloss >}}
(33)
{{< gloss "(35)" >}}
{g} *tokkon*,[proh]({sc})|*dungi=gi*,money=[acc]({sc})|*dab-ir-men*,disappear-[caus-neg.2sg]({sc})|
{r} “don’t lose the money”
{{< /gloss >}}
(34)
(35)
Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] form of the 1st person singular. This morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], too, e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir → -ir-ri → ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes.
Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] form of the 1st person singular. This morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], too, e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir → -ir-ri → ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension.
[^55]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2865 and §3718.
[^56]: “Neutral” is a tentative term for a (non-preterite, non-negative) suffix which in previous studies has been called “present tense.” The term “imperfective” is probably more appropriate.
[^57]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §3708.
Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension.
(36)
(37)
| | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (36) | ʃug-ur | “move down, descend” | ʃug-uddi | “cause to descend”|
| (37) | bowwi | “bathe” | boww-iddi | “cause to bathe”|
In Kordofan Nubian, the *‑(i)r*-extension has gained and lost functions. In Dilling, for instance, the *‑(i)r*-suffix has – apart from its causative function – adopted the function of an intransitivizer, thus both changing the valency of a verb from intransitive to transitive and, vice versa, from transitive to intransitive.[^58]
[^58]: Examples drawn from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* §253.
(38)
| Dilling | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (38) | dwaj | “spoil something” [tr]({sc}) | dwej-ir | “spoil” [itr]({sc}) |
| (39) | kuj | “hang” [itr]({sc}) | kuj-ir | “hang up” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) |
(39)
Some transitive and intransitive verbs are always extended by the *‑(i)r*-extension, thus suggesting that it has lost its valency-changing function. Noticing this loss, Kauczor refers to this extension by the German term “Stammverstärkung” – literally, “strengthening of the stem.”[^59]
@ -290,33 +298,45 @@ The corresponding Tagle extension is realized as [ir] after [+ATR] root vowel(s)
[^60]: All Tagle examples are provided by Ali Ibrahim (p.c.).
(40)
| Tagle | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (40) | ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀ ~ ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀r-ɪ̀ | “rise!” |
| (41) | dùʃ-ì ~ dùʃ-ìr-ì | “come out (of the ground)!” |
| (42) | ɛ̀ʃ-ɪ̀ ~ ɛ̀ʃ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ | “wake up!” |
(41)
(42)
Second, Tagle *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* is attested on some transitive verbs, but not as a causative suffix. Rather, it appears to have gained a new function in interacting with singular objects. Because of this function it contrasts with the *‑er ~ ‑ɛr*-extension, which is sensitive to plural objects (see [6.3](#63)).
(43)
| | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (43) | ūlt-ír-ì | “breastfeed!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ūlt-ér-ì | id., [oj pl]({sc}) |
| (44) | ùj-ír-ì | “put down, lay down!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ùj-èr-í | id., [oj pl]({sc}) |
(44)
This contrast of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* versus *‑er ~ ‑ɛr* is attested by a few Tagle verbs only. It is more common in combination with *‑ig,* forming the valency-increasing extensions *‑ɪg-ɪr ~ ‑ɪg-ɛr,* as shown in [2.2](#22).
The Karko reflex of the causative *\*‑(i)r*-extension has an unspecified vowel *V* which adopts the quality of the root vowel, as is common in Karko suffixes having a short vowel. The causative extension can therefore be represented as *‑(V)r.* It has the same segmental structure as the plural stem extension *‑(V)r* discussed in [6.3](#63) which precedes the causative suffix. In the following examples the object noun phrase *ɕə̄kə̄l* “gazelle” has the role of patient, it occurs in singular form. Because of the generic reading of *ɕə̄kə̄l,* the verb requires to be realized by a plural stem.
(45)
{{< gloss "(45)" >}}
{r} **Karko**
{g} *ɕə̄kə̄l=ə́g*,gazelle=[acc]({sc})|*fɛ̄t̪-ɛ́r*,hunt-[plr]({sc})|
{r} “hunt gazelle!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(46)
{{< gloss "(46)" >}}
{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*t̪ǒnd̪=òg*,boy=[acc]({sc})|*ɕə̄kə̄l=ə́g*,gazelle=[acc]({sc})|*fɛ̄t̪-r-ɛ́r*,hunt-[plr-caus]({sc})|
{r} “make this boy hunt for gazelle!”
{{< /gloss >}}
The causative *\*‑(i)r* is reflected by the Midob *‑(i)r*-extension. Werner provides two paired examples of *‑(i)r* deriving transitive from intransitive examples.[^61]
[^61]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 53.
[^61]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 53. Werner translates (48) with English infinitives, “to get up” and “to get/wake (somebody) up.” He does not provide morpheme glossing. Due to the inflectional suffix -*(i)hem,* they can be identified as 1st person perfect indicative forms.
(47)
| Midob | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (47) | tìmm-íhàm | “we gathered” [itr]({sc}) | tìmm-ír-hàm | “we gathered” [tr]({sc}) |
| (48) | pècc-ìhêm | “I got up” [itr]({sc}) | pècc-ír-hèm | “I woke (somebody) up” [tr]({sc})|
(48)
In addition to deriving transitive from intransitive verbs, Midob *‑(i)r* can derive ditransitive from transitive verbs. The extension *‑(i)r* adds an additional argument with the role of causer and assigns the role of causee to the previous transitive subject. The patient role of the previous transitive object remains unchanged in the derived ditransitive clause. Note that the object arguments in the following two examples do not require to be overtly accusative-marked.[^63] This observation confirms Werner, who points out that syntactic objects in Midob are commonly unmarked for case.[^64]
@ -324,7 +344,7 @@ In addition to deriving transitive from intransitive verbs, Midob *‑(i)r* can
[^64]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 29.
{{< gloss "(49)" >}}
{r} Midob
{r} **Midob**
{g} on, [3sg]({sc})|taa, road|pacc-ihum,deviate-[prf.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “s/he deviated from the road”
{{< /gloss >}}
@ -352,33 +372,41 @@ The following examples from Browne’s dictionary show that it derives transitiv
[^66]: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* pp. 81, 124, 152.
(51)
| Old Nubian | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (51) | ⲟⲕ, ⲱⲕ, ⲟⲅ | “stand, be (over)” [itr]({sc}) |ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲁⲣ, ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ | “place over, attend” [tr]({sc}) |
| (52) | ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ | “shine” [itr]({sc}) | ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ-ⲓⲅⲣ̄ | “reveal, illumine” [tr]({sc}) |
| (53) | ⲓϭ, ⲉϭ | “send, impel” [tr]({sc}) | ⲓϭ-ⲅⲣ̄ | “cause to send” [ditr]({sc}) |
(52)
(53)
Browne points out that -(ⲁ)ⲣ (see §2.1) and -ⲅ-(ⲁ)ⲣ may occasionally interchange.[^67] This finding supports my claim that they have the same function.
[^67]: Browne, *Old Nubian Grammar,* p. 48.
(54)
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (54) | ⲧⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁⲣ ~ ⲧⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲓⲅⲁⲣ | “assemble” |
In Nobiin, particularly in the Fadicca dialect, *kir* “make” is still used as an independent verb, as Reinisch points out.[^68] In addition, *kir* has undergone a grammaticalization process which has resulted in a causative construction comprising an uninflected lexical verb marked by the converb suffix *‑a* followed by *kir* serving as an auxiliary (for converb constructions see [3.2](#32)). This biverbal causative construction is very similar to the applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages. The following examples are drawn from Reinisch.[^69]
[^68]: Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 37.
[^69]: Ibid.
(55)
(56)
| Nobiin | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (55) | kab | “eat” | kab-a kir | “feed” |
| (56) | junti | “pregnant” | junt-a kir | “impregnate” |
In the Nobiin variety documented by Werner, however, *kìr* is no longer part of a biverbal converb construction but rather a derivational suffix of the lexical verb root.[^70] The suffix *‑kèer* results from *‑kir-ir,* i.e., the fusion of the causative suffix *‑kir* with the 1st person singular present tense[^71] suffix *‑ir.*
[^70]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 178.
[^71]: “Present tense” is a preliminary term for a category that is probably more adequately described as imperfective aspect.
(57)
{{< gloss "(57)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin**
{g} *ày*,[1sg]({sc})|*tàk=kà*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*kàb-kèer*,eat-[caus.ind.prs.1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I feed him,” lit. “I make him eat”
{{< /gloss >}}
In addition to *‑kìr,* Nobiin exhibits the complex causative extension *‑in-kir.* The etymological origin of the component *‑in* is debatable. Is it the linker *‑(i)n-,* as Werner first assumed,[^73] or a cognate of the Old Nubian copula verb ⲉⲓⲛ (*in*), as he has recently proposed? Werner renders *‑in-kir* as “let be” or “let happen” which fits well the semantic association of *‑in-kir* with permission.[^74] By contrast, *‑kìr* connotes with causation. This semantic distinction is confirmed by the Nobiin mother tongue speaker Isaameddiin Hasan.[^75]
@ -388,21 +416,28 @@ In addition to *‑kìr,* Nobiin exhibits the complex causative extension *‑in
In the following example the inflectional suffix *‑kiss* is due to anticipatory assimilation of the final consonant of *‑kir* to the 1st person singular preterite suffix *‑s.*
(58)
{{< gloss "(58)" >}}
{g} *ày*,[1sg]({sc})|*tàk=kà*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*nàl-ìnkìss*,see-[caus.ind.pt.1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I caused him to see”
{{< /gloss >}}
The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (← *‑gir-ri ← ‑gir-ir*), and *‑kiddi* (← *‑kir-ri ← ‑kir-ir*) derive transitive stems from intransitive bases and ditransitive stems from transitive bases.
(59)
(60)
(61)
| Mattokki | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (59) | boor | “be destroyed” | boor-kiddi | “destroy” |
| (60) | soll | “hang” | soll-igir | “hang up” |
| (61) | kuur | “learn” | kuur-kiddi | “teach” |
Here is a Mattokki example of *kuur* “learn” in a causative construction with two arguments, a first person singular causee and an assumed unexpressed pronominal patient.[^77]
[^77]: Ibid.
(62)
{{< gloss "(62)" >}}
{r} **Mattokki**
{g} ter,[3sg]({sc})|ai=g,[1sg=acc]({sc})|aa-kuur-kiddi-mun-um,[prog]({sc})-learn-[caus-neg-ind.pt.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “he did not teach [it] to me,” lit. “he did not make me learn [it]”
{{< /gloss >}}
The Andaandi causative suffix *‑(i)gir* is, as Armbruster argues,[^78] morphologically composed of two morphemes, accusative marker *‑g* (i.e., the “objective suffix” in Armbruster’s terms) and causative suffix *‑ir* discussed in [2.1](#21).
@ -410,32 +445,42 @@ The Andaandi causative suffix *‑(i)gir* is, as Armbruster argues,[^78] morphol
However, the fact that the velar stop [g] appears even in the non-Nubian Ama causative suffixes *‑ɪg* and *‑ɛg* (see [5.2](#52)) indicates that this stop should be identified with the causative, rather than with the accusative morpheme.
The *‑(i)gir*-extension occurs on intransitive and transitive verb stems. It is also used on borrowings from Arabic, such as *jammɛ* in the examples below.[^79] This indicates that *‑(i)gir* is highly productive.
The *‑(i)gir*-extension occurs on intransitive and transitive verb stems. It is also used on borrowings from Arabic, such as *jammɛ* in (65).[^79] This indicates that *‑(i)gir* is highly productive.
[^79]: Borrowed Arabic verbs are integrated into the Andaandi verbal system by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* which is more frequently realized with a long vowel as *ɛɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2879 and §§3602ff.
[^79]: Borrowed Arabic verbs are integrated into the Andaandi verbal system by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* which is more frequently realized with a long vowel as *ɛɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2879 and §§3602–3607.
(63)
| Andaandi | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (63) | ɛɛʃ=ɛ[^80] | “belch” | ɛɛʃ=ɛ-gir |“cause or allow to belch, play with food and drink” |
| (64) | ulli | “kindle” | ull-igir | “cause or allow to kindle” |
| (65) | jamm=ɛ | “come together, assemble” | |jamm=ɛ-gir | “cause or allow to come together, assemble” |
(64)
(65)
[^80]: *ɛɛʃ* belongs to the class of onomatopoeia or ideophones. They are not used as free forms but are turned into verbs by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar*, §§2870-2877.
Besides attaching to verbal bases, Andaandi *‑(i)gir* can attach to nominal bases, too. The resulting forms are transitive verb stems.
(66)
| | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (66) | fɛkka | “change, small coin” (Arabic loan) | fekka-gir | “convert into change” |
| (67) | dolli | “deep” | doll-igir | “cause or allow to be or become deep, deepen” |
| (68) | owwi | “two” | oww-igir | “cause or allow to be or become two, double” |
(67)
(68)
In addition to the *‑(i)gir*-extension, Andaandi exhibits the complex causative extension *‑(i)n-gir,* realized after a vowel as [ŋgir], after a consonant as [iŋgir]. It strongly resembles the Nobiin causative *‑in-kir.* Armbruster proposes to parse *‑ŋ-gir* into three morphemes *‑n-g-ir,* comprising the 3rd person suffix *‑n* of the subjunctive present tense, the accusative marker *‑g,* and the causative suffix *‑ir.*[^81] However, this morphological analysis is not convincing, particularly when the subject of the verb is a 2nd person addressee, as seen in the prohibitive and imperative examples below. Two alternative interpretations should be considered. Is *‑(i)n-* to be identified with the linker tying the causative extension *‑(i)gir* to the verb root? Or, as Werner has suggested for the Nobiin causative extension ‑in-kir,[^82] should we interpret *‑in* as a cognate of the Old Nubian copula ⲉⲓⲛ (*in*)? In the latter case the causative *‑in-gir* may be rendered by “let be, let happen.” This interpretation is supported by the notion of (negated) permission which is particularly apparent in (69).
In addition to the *‑(i)gir*-extension, Andaandi exhibits the complex causative extension *‑(i)n-gir,* realized after a vowel as [ŋgir], after a consonant as [iŋgir]. It strongly resembles the Nobiin causative *‑in-kir.* Armbruster proposes to parse *‑ŋ-gir* into three morphemes *‑n-g-ir,* comprising the 3rd person suffix *‑n* of the subjunctive present tense, the accusative marker *‑g,* and the causative suffix *‑ir.*[^81] However, this morphological analysis is not convincing, particularly when the subject of the verb is a 2nd person addressee, as seen in the prohibitive and imperative examples below. Two alternative interpretations should be considered. Is *‑(i)n-* to be identified with the linker tying the causative extension *‑(i)gir* to the verb root? Or, as Werner has suggested for the Nobiin causative extension ‑in-kir,[^82] should we interpret *‑in* as a cognate of the Old Nubian copula ⲉⲓⲛ (*in*)? In the latter case the causative *‑in-gir* may be rendered by “let be, let happen.” This interpretation is supported by the notion of (negated) permission which is particularly apparent in (69).[^83]
[^81]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §3688.
[^82]: Werner, p.c., October 2020.
[^83]: Examples provided by E. El-Guzuuli, p.c. June 2019.
(69)
{{< gloss "(69)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi**
{g} *tokkon*,[proh]({sc})|*dab-iŋgir-men*,get.lost-[caus-neg]({sc})|
{r} “don’t let it get lost!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(70)
{{< gloss "(70)" >}}
{g} *iig=ki*,fire=[acc]({sc})|*ull-iŋgir*,light-[caus]({sc})|
{r} “cause him to light the fire!”
{{< /gloss >}}
The Kordofan Nubian language Dilling has two causative extensions, *‑iir* and *‑eer.* According to Kauczor, the suffix *‑iir* is a contracted realization of *‑ig-ir,* cf. transitive *ʃwak-iir* “raise” and intransitive *ʃwak-ir* “rise.” The suffix *‑eer* is either a contracted realization of *‑eg-ir* or *‑ig-er.* The first is attested on the derived transitive verb *kok-eer* “split,” while the latter occurs on the derived transitive verb with a plural object, *duk-eer* “bend.” Some transitive verbs extended by *‑eer* do not have an intransitive stem. This is true for *ʃah-eer* “mend.”[^84]
@ -458,19 +503,38 @@ Similar to Dilling, Tagle uses the causative extensions *‑ɪg-ɪr* and *‑ɪg
| (76) | ɛ́ʃ-ɪ́g-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ | “wake up” [tr, oj sg, imp 2sg]({sc}) |
| (77) | ɛ́ʃ-ɪ́g-ɛ́r-ɪ̀ | “wake up” [tr, oj pl, imp 2sg]({sc}) |
The causative function of Tagle *‑ɪ́g-ɪ́r* and *‑ɪ́g-ɛ́r* can be demonstrated by the following examples. Note that the abbreviations [sg]({sc}) and [pl]({sc}) are used for glossing the number of nominal elements (e.g., nouns, agreement markers on verbs), when glossing verbal number, however, the singular and plural stems are glossed by [sng]({sc}) and [plr]({sc}).
The causative function of Tagle *‑ɪ́g-ɪ́r* and *‑ɪ́g-ɛ́r* can be demonstrated by the following examples. Note that the abbreviations [sg]({sc}) and [pl]({sc}) are used for glossing the number of nominal elements (e.g., nouns, agreement markers on verbs), when glossing verbal number, however, the singular and plural stems are glossed by [sng]({sc}) and [plr]({sc}).[^85]
(78)
[^85]: In (78) *ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀r-ɪ̀* can be replaced by *ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀*.
(79)
{{< gloss "(78)" >}}
{r} **Tagle**
{g} *tɔ́ɔ́*,up|*ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀r-ɪ̀*,rise-[sng-imp.2sg]({sc})|
{r} “rise!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(80)
{{< gloss "(79)" >}}
{g} *ánná*,[2sg.gen]({sc})|*ʊ́r=gɪ́*,head=[acc]({sc})|*tɔ́ɔ́*,up|*ʃɔ́k-ɪ́g-ɪ́r-ɪ̀*,raise-[caus-sng-imp.2sg]({sc})|
{r} “raise your head!”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(80)" >}}
{g} *ùníì=n*,people=[gen]({sc})|*ʊ́r-ʌ́nɪ́=gɪ́*,head-[pl=acc]({sc})|*tɔ́ɔ́*,up|*ʃɔ́k-ɪ́g-ɛ́r-ɪ̀*,raise-[caus-plr-imp.2sg]({sc})|
{r} “raise your people’s heads!”
{{< /gloss >}}
The Karko extension *‑ɛɛr* is only found on transitive verbs. It originates from *‑ɛg-ɪr,* the intervocalic velar [g] is assumed to be deleted. The extension *‑ɛɛr* often expresses single events, the morphologically unmarked stem, by contrast, conveys multiple events.
(81)
{{< gloss "(81)" >}}
{r} **Karko**
{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*hɔ̄ɔ́g*,wood.[acc]({sc})|*kák-ɛ̀ɛ́r*,split-[caus.sng]({sc})|
{r} “split this [piece of] wood!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(82)
{{< gloss "(82)" >}}
{g} *hə̄r=ə́g*,wood.[pl=acc]({sc})|*kàk*,split|
{r} “split the [pieces of] wood!”
{{< /gloss >}}
Midob, too, has – besides the *‑(i)r*-extension discussed in [2.1](#21) – another valency-increasing extension. With some verb bases it is realized as high tone *‑éek,* with others as low tone *‑èek.* Werner’s examples illustrate that *‑éek ~ ‑èek* derives causative from transitive verb bases.[^86] The question whether it also derives transitive from intransitive bases has yet to be answered.
@ -488,7 +552,10 @@ Midob *ètt* represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the sing
[^88]: Ibid., p. 27.
[^89]: Example from Grüning, *A Sketch of the Midob Verbal Morphology,* p. 41.
(86)
{{< gloss "(86)" >}}
{g} *ə́j*,[1sg]({sc})|*ə́ən*,[1sg.gen]({sc})|*tér=g*,goat=[acc]({sc})|*ett-eek-ih-èm*,buy.[plr-caus-prf-1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I sold my goats”
{{< /gloss >}}
Whereas the causative extensions in the Nile Nubian and Kordofan Nubian languages obviously originate from the Proto-Nubian *\*‑(i)gir*-extension, it is more difficult to show this for the Midob *‑éek ~ ‑èek.* The presence of the voiceless velar [k] is a first indication of the etymological relationship to *\*‑(i)gir,* since initial Proto-Nubian *\*g* is regularly shifted to Midob *k,* as attested by *\*geel-e → kéelé* “red,” *\*gorji → kórcí* “six,” and *\*goj → kòcc* “slaughter.”[^90] Furthermore, the long vowel of *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is suspected to be a realization of *\*‑(i)r,* because syllable-final *\*r* is often deleted in Midob. Compare *\*juur → sóo* “go, walk,” *\*weer → pèe* “someone (indefinite pronoun),” and *\*kir → ìi* “come.” The lengthening of the *ii*-vowel in the last item, which also attests the regular loss of initial *\*k* in Midob, is regarded to be a compensation for the lost *\*r.* Compensatory lengthening does not occur in *sóo* and *pèe* because they have an originally long vowel.
@ -529,55 +596,113 @@ In **Table 6,** the lexical items which are not regarded as reflexes of Proto-Nu
The Old Nubian reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen* are ⲧⲣ̄ (*tir*) and ⲇⲉⲛ (*den*), also spelled as ⲇⲓⲛ (*din*). As Proto-Nubian *\*deen* is reflected by *deen* in Nobiin, Mattokki, and Andaandi, one would expect the ⲉ in Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ to represent a long vowel as well. However, as Old Nubian does not have a standardized orthography, long vowels are sometimes spelled by doubling the corresponding vowel character but often they are just written with a single vowel in the Old Nubian texts.[^95]
[^95]: Cf. Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §2.2.
[^95]: Cf. Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §2.2. Nobiin examples from Werner, p.c., October 2020.
(87)
{{< gloss "(87)" >}}
{r} **Old Nubian**
{r} ⲧⲁⲕⲕⲁ ⳟⲟⲕ ⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲥⲱ
{g} *tak=ka*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*ŋok*,glory|*tin-na-sō*,give>2/3-[imp.2/3pl.pred-comm]({sc})|
{r} “give him glory!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(88)
{{< gloss "(88)" >}}
{r} ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲁ ⳟⲟⲕⲟⲩ ⲇⲓⲛⲉⲥⲱ
{g} *ai=ka*,[1sg=acc]({sc})|*ŋokou*,glory|*din-e-sō*,give>1-[imp.2/3sg.pred-comm]({sc})|
{r} “give me glory!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(89)
{{< gloss "(89)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin**
{g} *tak=ka*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*tir*,give>2/3|
{r} “give him/her!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(90)
{{< gloss "(90)" >}}
{g} *ay=ga*,[1sg=acc]({sc})|*deen*,give>1|
{r} “give me!”
{{< /gloss >}}
In the following Matokki example *tir* is realized as [tij], because of the anticipatory assimilation of the root-final *r* to the following palatal *j.* The unexpressed 3rd person plural pronominal recipient “(to) them” requires the pluractional *-(i)j*-extension combined with the plural object marker *‑ir* or *‑(i)r-ir*.
In the following Matokki example *tir* is realized as [tij], because of the anticipatory assimilation of the root-final *r* to the following palatal *j.* The unexpressed 3rd person plural pronominal recipient “(to) them” requires the pluractional *-(i)j*-extension combined with the plural object marker *‑ir* or *‑(i)r-ir*.[^98]
(91)
[^98]: Examples from Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 128.
(92)
{{< gloss "(91)" >}}
{r} **Mattokki**
{g} *ay*,[1sg]({sc})|*duguu=gi*,money=[acc]({sc})|*tij-j-ir-s-im*,give>2/3-[plact-ploj-pt2-1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I gave them money”
{{< /gloss >}}
The following Andaandi clause exhibits the plural object extension *‑ir* being triggered by the plural referent of the direct object (theme). In the second example the plural referent of the indirect object (recipient) requires the pluractional *-(i)j* realized as [c] combined with the plural object extensions *‑(i)r-ir*. The two examples also show that the position of the pronominal recipient may vary. In the first example the recipient precedes the theme, in the second example this sequence is reversed.
{{< gloss "(92)" >}}
{g} *kal*,bread|*toodek=ki*,a.little.bit=[acc]({sc})|*ay=gi*,[1sg=acc]({sc})|*deen*,give>1|
{r} “give me a little bit of bread!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(93)
The following Andaandi clause exhibits the plural object extension *‑ir* being triggered by the plural referent of the direct object (theme). In the second example the plural referent of the indirect object (recipient) requires the pluractional *-(i)j* realized as [c] combined with the plural object extensions *‑(i)r-ir*. The two examples also show that the position of the pronominal recipient may vary. In the first example the recipient precedes the theme, in the second example this sequence is reversed.[^99]
(94)
[^99]: Examples from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* pp. 48, 200.
{{< gloss "(93)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi**
{g} *tɛk=ki*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*in-gu=gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*tir-ir*,give>2/3-[ploj]({sc})|
{r} “give these (various things) to him/her!”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(94)" >}}
{g} *in=gi*,[this=acc]({sc})|*ar=gi*,[1pl=acc]({sc})|*deen-c-irir*,give>1-[plact-ploj]({sc})|
{r} “give this to us!”
{{< /gloss >}}
Dilling and Karko distinguish two donative verbs. As pointed out in the beginning of this section, Kauczor’s Dilling data do not account for the phonemic contrast between *t̪* and *t,* therefore *tir* and *tin* are spelled with the same initial character. We assume, that – similar to Tagle and Karko – the initial segment in both verbs is an alveolar *t.* The final *‑en* on the uninflected donative verbs can be identified as a purposive converb marker (see [3.2](#32)).[^100]
[^100]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 346.
(95)
{{< gloss "(95)" >}}
{r} **Dilling**
{g} *a=g*,[2sg=acc]({sc})|*waltu*,also|*a=tir-en*,[2sg.acc]({sc})=give>2/3-[pcnv]({sc})|*kol-i-a*,eat.[sng-imp.2sg-q]({sc})|
{r} “shall I give it also to you so that you eat it?”
{{< /gloss >}}
(96)
{{< gloss "(96)" >}}
{g} *o=g*,[1sg=acc]({sc})|*waltu*,also|*o=tin-en*,[1sg.acc]({sc})=give>1-[pcnv]({sc})|*kol-e-a*,eat.[sng-imp.1sg-q]({sc})|
{r} “will you give it also to me so that I eat it?”
{{< /gloss >}}
Tagle has lost the distinction between the two donative verbs, leaving a single donative verb, *tí.* In the following examples, *tí* refers to a 3rd person and a 1st person singular recipient. When exchanging the [1sg]({sc}) accusative clitic *ò* for [2sg]({sc}) *à,* the verb *tí* can be shown to refer to a 2nd person recipient, as well.
(97)
{{< gloss "(97)" >}}
{r} **Tagle**
{g} *ɪ́yɪ́-g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*tí-m-ín*,give-[pst-3]({sc})|
{r} “he gave him/them milk”
{{< /gloss >}}
(98)
{{< gloss "(98)" >}}
{g} *ɪ́yɪ́-g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*ò=tí-m-ín*,[1sg.acc]({sc})=give-[pst-3]({sc})|
{r} “he gave me milk”
{{< /gloss >}}
Like Dilling but unlike Tagle, Karko exhibits two donative verbs, *tìì* (with an irregular alveolar *t* rather than the expected dental *t̪*) and *tèn,* respectively.
(99)
{{< gloss "(99)" >}}
{r} **Karko**
{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*t̪ēē-g*,cow=[acc]({sc})|*tìì*,give>2/3|
{r} “give him this cow!”
{{< /gloss >}}
(100)
{{< gloss "(100)" >}}
{r} **Karko**
{g} *íǐ(g)*,[1in.acc]({sc})|*t̪ēē*,cow|*tèn*,give>1|
{r} “give us a cow!”
{{< /gloss >}}
In Midob, the original distinction between the two donative verbs is retained as well, *\*tir* being reflected by the low tone verb stem *tìr* “give to you/him/them” and *\*deen* by the high tone verb stem *téen* “give to me/us.”[^101] Apparently, these stems undergo some alternations in their imperative forms, *tìr* being realized as *tìd* and *téen* as *téèm.* When they refer to a plural recipient, they require the plural stem extension *-èr ~ -àr* ([6.3](#63)).
[^101]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 56, 130, 132.
(101)
| Midob | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (101) | tìd | “give him!” | téèm | “give me!” |
| (102) | tìr-èr | “give them!” [2sg]({sc}) | téén-àr | “give us!” |
(102)
Parallel to their continuous use as independent verbs, the two Nubian donative verbs have undergone grammaticalization associated with applicative constructions. In the course of this process they have lost their status as lexical verbs. Due to reanalysis they have gained the status of valency-increasing elements, either as derivational suffixes or as a kind of auxiliary in a biverbal converb construction.
@ -609,7 +734,7 @@ The characteristic semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of converbs
[^115]: Example from *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii,* p. 54.
{{< gloss "(103)" >}}
{r} Nobiin
{r} **Nobiin**
{g} *iiw=ga*,cereals=[acc]({sc})|*jaaw=log*,mill=[ins]({sc})|*joog-j-a*,grind-[plact-cnv]({sc})|*issee=g*,dough=[acc]({sc})|*att-oos-a*,knead-[pfv-cnv]({sc})|*ittir*,side.dish|*tan=ga*,[3sg.gen=acc]({sc})|*niff-oos-a*,stir-[pfv-cnv]({sc})|*aman*,water|*tan=ga*,[3sg.gen=acc]({sc})|*oll-ij-a*,draw-[plact-cnv]({sc})|*id=idan*,man=[com]({sc})|*jelli=laak*,work=towards|*sukk-oos-on*,descend-[pfv-pt.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “she ground the cereals with the handmill, prepared the dough, stirred her side dish, drew her water, and went down to the work with the man”
{{< /gloss >}}
@ -644,7 +769,11 @@ Converb constructions and serial verb constructions resemble each other because
[^123]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 126 points out that the converb (“Verbum conjunctum”) is realized i) without a suffix; ii) with the suffix *‑ka*; and iii) with the suffix *‑rgi ~ -rigi.* It is unclear, however, which criteria trigger the selection of one of these converb forms.
[^124]: Jakobi & El-Guzuuli, “Perception Verbs and their Semantics in Dongolawi,” erroneously refer to converbs as serial verbs, thus disregarding the fact that Andaandi (Dongolawi) converbs cannot function as independent verbs in simple clauses, as serial verbs can do.
(106)
{{< gloss "(106)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi**
{g} *shay=gi*,tea=[acc]({sc})|*nii-ed*,drink-[pfv]({sc})|*bedd-os*,pray-[pfv]({sc})|*imbel*,get.up|*nog-ir-an*,go-[neut-3sg]({sc})|
{r} “they drink tea, pray, get up, and leave”
{{< /gloss >}}
When both the converb(s) and the main verb contribute equally to the semantic expression of events, as illustrated in (106), this type of complex predicate is conceived of as a symmetrical converb construction. It differs from an asymmetrical type which comprises a converb from an open class and a main verb from a closed class.[^125] These asymmetrical constructions result from specific syntactic constellations in which the converb and the main verb are immediately adjacent to each other. Such contiguous converb plus main verb sequences are subject to various grammaticalization processes in which the main verbs can turn into markers of aspect/modality, direction, or even valency change.[^126] The latter, i.e., the valency-changing use of asymmetrical converb constructions, is attested by the applicative constructions in the Nile Nubian languages – and even by some causative constructions, as seen in (55) and (56).
@ -655,28 +784,42 @@ The stative aspect marker in Nobiin, for instance, is also associated with an as
[^127]: Mufwene, *Stativity and the Progressive.* Example from Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 185.
(107)
{{< gloss "(107)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin**
{g} V1,*kàb-à*,[eat-cnv]({sc})|V2,*fìir*,[stat.1pl]({sc})|
{r} “we are eating”
{{< /gloss >}}
Similarly, in Mattokki[^129] and Andaandi, a motion verb realized by an unmarked converb (V1), plus a finite posture verb buu “lie, rest” (V2), is used to express a transient state of motion. Due to its grammaticalization as a stative marker, V2 has lost its status as a separable main verb. The question clitic *te,* for instance, cannot be inserted between V1 and V2.[^130]
[^129]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 115-117.
[^130]: Example from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 38.
(108)
{{< gloss "(108)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi**
{g} ,*indo*,here|V1,*juu*,move.along|V2,*bun*,[stat.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “s/he is on his way hither”
{{< /gloss >}}
While the preceding Nobiin and Andaandi examples illustrate the grammaticalization of an asymmetric converb construction in which the main verb has turned into an aspect marker, the following examples show another type of asymmetric converb construction. It is associated with the collocation of transfer and directed motion verbs which jointly express single directed events.[^131]
[^131]: Examples from Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 292.
(109)
{{< gloss "(109)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin**
{r} ay ed-a kiir → ay ed-kiir [ekkiir] “I bring it,” lit. “I take it and come”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(110)" >}}
{r} ay ed-a juur → ay ed-juur [ejjuur] “I take it along,” lit. “I take it and go”
{{< /gloss >}}
(110)
Andaandi, too, exhibits similar converb constructions expressing directed transfer events. The verbs involved in such a construction are often synonymous or nearly synonymous.[^132]
[^132]: Examples provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c.
| | | |
| Andaandi | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (111) | sukk undur | “insert it!, squeeze it in!,” lit. “insert it and enter it!” |
| (112) | kall undur | “push it in!,” lit. “push it and enter it!” |
@ -690,13 +833,21 @@ In Mattokki, too, such transfer events are often expressed by more than one verb
[^133]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 214. According to El‑Shafie El‑Guzuuli, p.c., this expression is not used in Andaandi.
[^134]: Abdel-Hafiz, A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian, pp. 123–125. Example from ibid., p. 125.
(117)
{{< gloss "(117)" >}}
{r} **Mattokki**
{g} *wel*,dog|*katree=r*,wall=[loc]({sc})|*ekk-undur-s-u*,urinate-insert-[pt2-3sg]({sc})|
{r} “the dog urinated on the wall”
{{< /gloss >}}
At least in Andaandi, however, the clitic interrogative marker *te* can be inserted between the two verbs. This indicates that they are separate verbs rather than compounds.[^136]
[^136]: Example provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c.
(118)
{{< gloss "(118)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi**
{g} *ekki=te*,urinate=[q]({sc})|*undur-ko-n*,insert-[pt1-3sg]({sc})|
{r} “did he urinate on it?”
{{< /gloss >}}
When a directed motion or transfer event is expressed by means of two verbs, of which V1 conveys the manner of movement and V2 the path or trajectory in relation to the deictic center, this construction represents a pattern typical of verb-framed languages where “manner must be expressed in some kind of subordinate element, such as a gerund or other adverbial expression,” as Slobin points out.[^137] In the Nile Nubian languages, the adverbial expression is represented by a converb.
@ -714,36 +865,64 @@ Asymmetrical converb constructions can also become fixed collocations expressing
Such collocations and the grammaticalization of adjacent verbs are also manifested in asymmetric serial verb constructions, as Aikhenvald points out.[^140] For this reason, these features cannot be regarded as defining properties of converbs.
[^148]: Aikhenvald, “Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective, p. 30f.”
[^140]: Aikhenvald, “Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective, p. 30f.”
The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions attested in the modern Nile Nubian languages are also apparent in Old Nubian whose converbs are marked by ‑ⲁ. The converb(s) and the main verb, along with their respective object complements and adjuncts, form multiclausal constructions which can express a series of events, as illustrated by ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧ-ⲁ … ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ-ⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (121) and by ⳝⲟⲣ-ⲁ ⲕⲓ-ⲁ̄ … ⲕⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ in (122).
The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions attested in the modern Nile Nubian languages are also apparent in Old Nubian whose converbs are marked by ‑ⲁ. The converb(s) and the main verb, along with their respective object complements and adjuncts, form multiclausal constructions which can express a series of events, as illustrated by ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧ-ⲁ … ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ-ⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (121) and by ⳝⲟⲣ-ⲁ ⲕⲓ-ⲁ̄ … ⲕⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ in (122).[^141]
(121)
[^141]: Examples from Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas.*
(122)
{{< gloss "(121)" >}}
{r} **Old Nubian**
{r} ⲙⲁⲛ⳿ ⲉⲧ̄ⲧⲗ̄ⲗⲟⲛ ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲕ⳿ ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧⲁ ⲁ̄ⲙⲁⲛⲇⲟ⳿ ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ
{g} *man*,that|*eitt-il=lon*,woman-[det=top]({sc})|*koumpou=k*,egg=[acc]({sc})|*en-et-a*,take-[pfv-cnv]({sc})|*aman=do*,water=[sub]({sc})|*soukk-a*,descend-[cnv]({sc})|*kis-n-a*,come.[pt2-2/3sg-pred]({sc})|
{r} “that woman took up the egg and went down to the water” (M 3.14–4.1)
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(122)" >}}
{r} ⳟⲥⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲏⲛⲁⲉⲓⲟⲛ ⲙⲁⲛ ⲉⲧ̄ⲧⲛ̄ ⳟⲟⲅⲗⲟ ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ ϣⲁⲁⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲙ̄ⲙⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ·
{g} ŋissou,Saint|*mēna=eion*,Mina=[top]({sc})|*man*,that|*eitt=in*,woman=[gen]({sc})|*ŋog=lo*,house=[loc]({sc})|*jor-a*,go-[cnv]({sc})|*ki-a*,come-[cnv]({sc})|*ʃaak=ka*,door=[acc]({sc})|*kimm-a*,hit-[cnv]({sc})|*ook-ir-s-n-a*,call-[tr-pt2-2/3-pred]({sc})|
{r} “And Saint Mena went to the house of that woman, knocked on the door and had her called.” (M 12.13–16)
{{< /gloss >}}
A converb can also represent an event anterior to the event designated by the main verb, as illustrated by ⲟⲩⲕⲣⲓ ⲇⲓⲉ̇ⲅⲟⲩⲗ ⳟⲟⲕ-ⲁ ⳝⲟⲣⲟⲩⲁⲛⲛⲟⲛ … ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (123).
(123)
{{< gloss "(123)" >}}
{r} ⲟⲩⲕⲣⲓ ⲇⲓⲉ̇ⲅⲟⲩⲗ ⳟⲟⲕⲁ ⳝⲟⲣⲟⲩⲁⲛⲛⲟⲛ ⲫⲓⲗⲟⲝⲉⲛⲓⲧⲏⲛ ⲅⲁⲁⲇⲇⲱ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ
{g} *oukr-i*,day-[pl]({sc})|*die-gou-l*,be.much-[pl-det]({sc})|*ŋok-a*,pass-[cnv]({sc})|*jor-ou-an=non*,go-[pt1-3pl=foc]({sc})|*philoxenitē=n*,Philoxenite=[gen]({sc})|*gaad=dō*,shore=[supe]({sc})|*ki-s-n-a*,come-[pt2-2/3sg-pred]({sc})|
{r} “And after many days had gone by, he came to the shore of Philoxenite” (M 7.15–8.2)
{{< /gloss >}}
When the converb expresses an event simultaneous with the event expressed by the main verb, it is used like an adverb of manner modifying the main verb, as shown by ⲇⲟⲕ‑ⲁ ⲕⲛ̄ in (124).
(124)
{{< gloss "(124)" >}}
{r} ⲙⲟⲩⲣⲧⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲩⲗⲟⲩⲕⲁ⳿ ⲇⲟⲕⲁ ⲕⲛ̄
{g} *mourtou*,horse|*ŋoulou=ka*,white=[acc]({sc})|*dok-a*,ride-[cnv]({sc})|*kin*,come.[prs.2/3sg]({sc})|
{r} “[… as] he came riding a white horse” (M 11.1)
{{< /gloss >}}
Similar to the modern Nile Nubian languages, Old Nubian converbs do not take inflectional morphemes such as tense, negation, and subject markers. In fact, the variety of aspect and derivational extensions is strongly restricted. They comprise the perfective markers, ‑ⲉⲓⲧ ~ ‑ⲉⲧ as in (121) *en-et-a* and ‑ⲟⲥ in (125) *aul‑os-ij*[*-a*], as well as the causative, as attested on (144) *pill-igr-a,* and the pluractional *‑j* on (125) *aul‑os-ij*[*-a*].[^145] These suffixes immediately precede the converb marker ‑ⲁ. However, in comparison to the modern Nile Nubian languages where *‑os ~ ‑oos* is frequently found with converbs – as seen in (103) and (106) – the Old Nubian perfective marker ‑ⲟⲥ appears to be rather rare. Moreover, it is often attested being followed by the pluractional extension *‑j*. In the modern Nile Nubian languages, by contrast, the pluractional *‑(i)j* precedes *‑os ~ ‑oos,* as in (161) *gull‑ij‑os-s-u*. These findings show that the position of ‑ⲟⲥ is not yet firmly established in the Old Nubian grammatical system. They support Van Gerven Oei’s hypothesis that ‑ⲟⲥ and ‑ⲉⲓⲧ ~ ‑ⲉⲧ are newly developed perfective markers in Old Nubian.[^146]
Similar to the modern Nile Nubian languages, Old Nubian converbs do not take inflectional morphemes such as tense, negation, and subject markers. In fact, the variety of aspect and derivational extensions is strongly restricted. They comprise the perfective markers, ‑ⲉⲓⲧ ~ ‑ⲉⲧ as in (121) *en-et-a* and ‑ⲟⲥ in (125) *aul‑os-ij-a*, as well as the causative, as attested on (144) *pill-igr-a,* and the pluractional *‑j* on (125) *aul‑os-ij-a*.[^145] These suffixes immediately precede the converb marker ‑ⲁ. However, in comparison to the modern Nile Nubian languages where *‑os ~ ‑oos* is frequently found with converbs – as seen in (103) and (106) – the Old Nubian perfective marker ‑ⲟⲥ appears to be rather rare. Moreover, it is often attested being followed by the pluractional extension *‑j*. In the modern Nile Nubian languages, by contrast, the pluractional *‑(i)j* precedes *‑os ~ ‑oos,* as in (161) *gull‑ij‑os-s-u*. These findings show that the position of ‑ⲟⲥ is not yet firmly established in the Old Nubian grammatical system. They support Van Gerven Oei’s hypothesis that ‑ⲟⲥ and ‑ⲉⲓⲧ ~ ‑ⲉⲧ are newly developed perfective markers in Old Nubian.[^146]
[^145]: Browne, *Old Nubian Grammar,* p. 65; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 148.
[^146]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §11.1.2.
[^146]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §11.1.2. Example from ibid., [CHECK].
{{< gloss "(125)" >}}
{r} ⲥ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲕⲕⲟⲛⲁ ⲧⲱⲉⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲁ ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲓⳝ[ⲁ̄]· ⳟⲁⲗⲓ̈ⳝⲟⲩⲁⲇⲇⲛ[ⲁ]ⲉⲛⲕⲱ
{g} *istaurosou*,cross|*ŋok-ko-na*,glory-[adj=gen]({sc})|*tōek*-∅,power-[nom]({sc})|*tek=ka*,[3pl=acc]({sc})|*aul-os-ij-a*,save-[pfv-plact-cnv]({sc})|*ŋal-ijou-ad-d-n-a-enkō*,save-[plact-inten-prs-2/3sg-pred]({sc})-but|
{r} “but (the) power of the glorious cross will save and rescue them” (St 15.1–9)
{{< /gloss >}}
(125)
Asymmetric converb constructions in Old Nubian often involve two contiguous motion or transfer verbs. These collocations serve to express single directed events, as shown by (121) ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ “descend” plus “come,” i.e., “go down to” or (122) ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ “go” plus “come,” i.e., “go to." Collocations of two nearly synonymous verbs can even turn into compound verb stems in which the converb marker is deleted.[^148]
[^148]: Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas,* p. 35 describes the unmarked converb in these collocations as “desinenceless adjunctive.”
(126)
{{< gloss "(126)" >}}
{r} ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ- “present an offering” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “worship” (M 6.5)
{{< /gloss >}}
(127)
{{< gloss "(127)" >}}
{r} ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲣ “deposit” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲣ “lay” (M 6.15)
{{< /gloss >}}
Now, after having described the morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of Nile Nubian converb constructions and after identifying the Old Nubian verbal suffix ‑ⲁ and its cognate, Nobiin *‑a,* as dedicated converb markers, we will finally turn towards the applicative in the Nile Nubian and western Nubian languages.
@ -761,27 +940,53 @@ Nile Nubian applicatives are encoded by bipartite converb constructions, includi
In the bipartite Old Nubian applicative construction, the stem of the lexical verb V1 is marked for its status as dependent verb by the converb suffix ‑ⲁ. It is followed by V2, the finite donative verb serving as valency-increasing grammatical device.
(128)
{{< gloss "(128)" >}}
{r} **Old Nubian**
{r} ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲧⲁⲛ ̀ ⲉⲓⲗⲁ ̀ ⲟⲩⲧⲣ̄ⲁ ⲧⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ
{g} *koumpou=ka*,egg=[acc]({sc})|*tan*,[3sg.gen]({sc})|*ei=la*,hand=[dat]({sc})|*outir-a*,lay-[cnv]({sc})|*tir-s-n-a*,[appl>2/3-pt2-3sg-pred]({sc})|
{r} “she placed the egg in his hand” (M 7.4–6)
{{< /gloss >}}
Such periphrastic applicative constructions are considered to be asymmetric formations because only the converb (V1) contributes to the lexical expression of the event. The finite donative verb (V2), by contrast, provides grammatical meaning as “valence operator”[^152] licensing an object argument with a beneficiary role or a semantically related role.
[^152]: Creissels, “Benefactive Applicative Periphrases.”
The following three examples illustrate an applicative construction with the utterance verb “say, tell.” Because of the semantics of this verb, the applied object argument is assigned the role of addressee. When this object has a pronominal 3rd person referent as in (129), the corresponding person pronoun is not required to be overtly expressed.
The following three examples illustrate an applicative construction with the utterance verb “say, tell.” Because of the semantics of this verb, the applied object argument is assigned the role of addressee. When this object has a pronominal 3rd person referent as in (129), the corresponding person pronoun is not required to be overtly expressed.[^153]
(129)
[^153]: Examples from Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* pp. 135, 136; Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 187.
(130)
{{< gloss "(129)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin**
{g} *tar*,[3sg]({sc})|*iig-a-tir-on*,say-[cnv-appl>2/3-pt.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “he told you/him/her”
{{< /gloss >}}
(131)
{{< gloss "(130)" >}}
{g} *talaamiidii=g*,disciples=[acc]({sc})|*iig-a-tij-j-on* (← *iig-a-tir-j-on*),say-[cnv-appl>2/3-plact-pt.3sg]({sc})|
{r} “he told his disciples”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(131)" >}}
{g} *íig-à-tèer*,say-[cnv-appl>2/3.prs.1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I tell you/him/her”
{{< /gloss >}}
In Mattokki and Andaandi, too, the verb *tir* (with the allomorph *sir* when following *s*) has become a valency-increasing device forming applicative constructions. In (132) the pronominal object *tek=ki* has a beneficiary role, while in (133) *ek=k* has the role of addressee assigned by the utterance verb *wee* “say.”
Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin converbs, which are marked by *‑a,* Mattokki and Andaandi do not have such a dedicated converb marker. Due to the lack of tone-marked data, we do not know, however, whether converbs undergo any tonal modifications.
Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin converbs, which are marked by *‑a,* Mattokki and Andaandi do not have such a dedicated converb marker. Due to the lack of tone-marked data, we do not know, however, whether converbs undergo any tonal modifications.[^156]
(132)
[^156]: Examples from Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 134.
(133)
{{< gloss "(132)" >}}
{r} **Mattokki**
{g} *tek=ki*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*kus-sir-sim*,open-[appl>2/3-pt.1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I opened [it] for him”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(133)" >}}
{g} *ai*,[1sg]({sc})|*ek=k*,[2sg=acc]({sc})({sc})|*aa-wee-tir-rin*,[prog]({sc})-say-[appl>2/3-neut.1sg]({sc})|
{r} “I am telling you”
{{< /gloss >}}
Massenbach, Armbruster, Werner, and Abdel-Hafiz represent the biverbal applicative constructions as single words.[^157] At least in Andaandi, however, the question clitic te can be inserted between the converb and the finite donative verb. This indicates that the converb and the donative verb are separable free forms. The question of whether the two verbs in the corresponding Nobiin and Mattokki applicative constructions can be separated as well has yet to be investigated.