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

more changes

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
4nubianstudies 2020-12-23 11:27:35 +01:00
parent 1afa6c1f31
commit 921abfc6f0
6 changed files with 330 additions and 321 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

79
content/article/blench.md
View file

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ keywords: ["East Sudanic", "Nilo-Saharan", "comparative linguistics"]
The East (formerly “Eastern”) Sudanic languages, spread between Chad and Northern Tanzania, constitute a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a proposed membership of nine families, including Nilotic, the largest and most complex group. We owe the original concept of East Sudanic to Greenberg who attributed seven branches to it,[^1] shown in **Table 1**, together with their modern names. Families unknown to Greenberg are added in the “Current” column. The East (formerly “Eastern”) Sudanic languages, spread between Chad and Northern Tanzania, constitute a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a proposed membership of nine families, including Nilotic, the largest and most complex group. We owe the original concept of East Sudanic to Greenberg who attributed seven branches to it,[^1] shown in **Table 1**, together with their modern names. Families unknown to Greenberg are added in the “Current” column.
[^1]: Greenberg, "Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family." [^1]: Greenberg, "Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.”
| Greenberg (1950) | Current | | Greenberg (1950) | Current |
| :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- |
@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ The nine branches remain the accepted listing with some relatively minor reassig
Despite its previous acceptance, the published arguments for the coherence of East Sudanic remain weak. No unambiguous innovations, lexical or phonological, mark all branches as members. Some researchers have expressed scepticism about its unity. However, studies of East Sudanic by Dimmendaal broadly accept the classification of Bender,[^16] although using very different criteria for accepting its coherence. However, Güldemann remains sceptical, arguing that internal typological differences may be evidence for convergence rather than genetic affiliation.[^16a] The [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/) takes a far more extreme position, treating all branches as distinct families. Despite its previous acceptance, the published arguments for the coherence of East Sudanic remain weak. No unambiguous innovations, lexical or phonological, mark all branches as members. Some researchers have expressed scepticism about its unity. However, studies of East Sudanic by Dimmendaal broadly accept the classification of Bender,[^16] although using very different criteria for accepting its coherence. However, Güldemann remains sceptical, arguing that internal typological differences may be evidence for convergence rather than genetic affiliation.[^16a] The [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/) takes a far more extreme position, treating all branches as distinct families.
[^16]: Dimmendaal, “Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan"; Dimmendaal, *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages*; Dimmendaal, "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin." [^16]: Dimmendaal, “Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan"; Dimmendaal, *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages*; Dimmendaal, "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin.”
[^16a]: Güldemann, “The Historical-Comparative Status of East Sudanic.” [^16a]: Güldemann, “The Historical-Comparative Status of East Sudanic.”
# Lexical evidence # Lexical evidence
@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ The first person singular subject pronoun in East Sudanic, first set out by Gree
**~~Table 3. First person singular subject pronoun in East Sudani[^103]~~** **~~Table 3. First person singular subject pronoun in East Sudani[^103]~~**
[^103]: Data Bender, “The Genetic Position of Nilotic *i*" and Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* supplemented with more recent sources. [^103]: Data from Bender, “The Genetic Position of Nilotic *i*” and Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* supplemented with more recent sources.
Even this dataset does not entirely support Bender’s division, since Daju appears to fall in the Ek group. The forms with a nasal largely correspond to Bender’s En, while those without nasals correspond to Ek. However, on this evidence, the presence of a velar cannot be said to characterise all Ek languages. Even this dataset does not entirely support Bender’s division, since Daju appears to fall in the Ek group. The forms with a nasal largely correspond to Bender’s En, while those without nasals correspond to Ek. However, on this evidence, the presence of a velar cannot be said to characterise all Ek languages.
@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Even this dataset does not entirely support Bender’s division, since Daju appe
Bender, Ehret, Rilly, and Starostin agree that at least Nubian, Nara, Tama, and perhaps Nyimang form a subgroup (Ehret’s “Astaboran”).[^104] The lexical tables below provide a summary version of the compilations of Rilly sometimes with updated citations. **Table 4** shows the Ek forms for “drink” which seem to refer to a protoform *\*dii*. Bender, Ehret, Rilly, and Starostin agree that at least Nubian, Nara, Tama, and perhaps Nyimang form a subgroup (Ehret’s “Astaboran”).[^104] The lexical tables below provide a summary version of the compilations of Rilly sometimes with updated citations. **Table 4** shows the Ek forms for “drink” which seem to refer to a protoform *\*dii*.
[^104]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages*; Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages*; Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan*; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*, and Starostin, "Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I." [^104]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages*; Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages*; Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan*; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*, and Starostin, "Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I.”
| Subgroup | Language | Attestation | | Subgroup | Language | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ Bender, Ehret, Rilly, and Starostin agree that at least Nubian, Nara, Tama, and
**~~Table 4. Ek lexical isogloss, “drink,” *\*dii*[^t4]~~** **~~Table 4. Ek lexical isogloss, “drink,” *\*dii*[^t4]~~**
[^t4]: Nara and Ama data from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Dilling, Midob, and proto-Taman data from Starostin, "Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I." [^t4]: Nara and Ama data from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Dilling, Midob, and proto-Taman data from Starostin, "Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I.”
**Table 5** shows a common form for “house,” assuming Nubian preserves a velar lost in the other languages. The vowel is not entirely clear, but I provisionally reconstruct a mid central vowel. **Table 5** shows a common form for “house,” assuming Nubian preserves a velar lost in the other languages. The vowel is not entirely clear, but I provisionally reconstruct a mid central vowel.
@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ Bender, Ehret, Rilly, and Starostin agree that at least Nubian, Nara, Tama, and
**~~Table 7. Ek lexical isogloss, “two,” *\*wari(m)*[^t7]~~** **~~Table 7. Ek lexical isogloss, “two,” *\*wari(m)*[^t7]~~**
[^t7]: Haraza data from Bell, "Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian,"" 84; Old Nubian data from Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* 138; Karko data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns"; Nara data from Hayward, “Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara”; Proto-Nyima data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon”; Proto-Taman data from Edgar, “First Steps toward Proto-Tama.” [^t7]: Haraza data from Bell, "Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian,” 84; Old Nubian data from Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* 138; Karko data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns"; Nara data from Hayward, “Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara”; Proto-Nyima data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon”; Proto-Taman data from Edgar, “First Steps toward Proto-Tama.”
## The En Languages ## The En Languages
@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ Though the En languages share overlapping isoglosses, they do not share enough c
In the light of these problems with the lexicon, it may be that a better case for East Sudanic can be made on the basis of morphology. Bryan had already noted the existence of a “t-k substratum” in a variety of languages across East-Central Africa.[^301] These elements are affixes on nominals associated with number marking. Her argument is somewhat confused, as this feature is unlikely to be a substrate feature of some lost phylum. Most plausibly, it is a feature of Nilo-Saharan which has been borrowed *into* Afroasiatic (since it is definitely not a widespread feature of Afroasiatic). Bryan identifies the following morphological elements: In the light of these problems with the lexicon, it may be that a better case for East Sudanic can be made on the basis of morphology. Bryan had already noted the existence of a “t-k substratum” in a variety of languages across East-Central Africa.[^301] These elements are affixes on nominals associated with number marking. Her argument is somewhat confused, as this feature is unlikely to be a substrate feature of some lost phylum. Most plausibly, it is a feature of Nilo-Saharan which has been borrowed *into* Afroasiatic (since it is definitely not a widespread feature of Afroasiatic). Bryan identifies the following morphological elements:
[^301]: Bryan, “The T–K Languages." [^301]: Bryan, “The T–K Languages.”
* Singulative *-t* * Singulative *-t*
* Plural *-k* * Plural *-k*
@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ These affixes are certainly present in East Sudanic languages along with others.
The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of gemination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308] The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of gemination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308]
[^302]: Greenberg, “Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article." [^302]: Greenberg, “Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article.”
[^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* pp. 176, 181. [^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* pp. 176, 181.
[^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* p. 75. [^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* p. 75.
[^305]: Ibid. [^305]: Ibid.
@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ Nubian demonstrates strong evidence for tripartite number marking in nouns. Jako
**~~Table 9. Karko singulatives[^401]~~** **~~Table 9. Karko singulatives[^401]~~**
[^401]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns." [^401]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns.”
However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus *ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr,* with a distinct second set, *Vɲ ~ Vŋ*. The suffix *-Vnd* may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes. However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus *ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr,* with a distinct second set, *Vɲ ~ Vŋ*. The suffix *-Vnd* may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes.
@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority se
**~~Table 10. Karko plural marking[^401a]~~** **~~Table 10. Karko plural marking[^401a]~~**
[^401a]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns." [^401a]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns.”
Proto-Nubian may have had a fully functional tripartite system, which has now eroded leaving both singulatives and plurals, but not simultaneously. Once allomorphy is taken into account, the available affixes are very restricted. A language such as Midob has a still more reduced system, with only the alveo-dental *t ~ di* (**Table 11**). Proto-Nubian may have had a fully functional tripartite system, which has now eroded leaving both singulatives and plurals, but not simultaneously. Once allomorphy is taken into account, the available affixes are very restricted. A language such as Midob has a still more reduced system, with only the alveo-dental *t ~ di* (**Table 11**).
@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ Nominal plurals in Nara are created through suffixing and sporadic gemination of
The plurals in last three classes which involve consonant doubling and change the final vowel to *-a* may simply be allomorphs of an underlying *-a* suffix. These may derive from a single rule and thus not exemplify the characteristic East Sudanic suffixes. The plurals in last three classes which involve consonant doubling and change the final vowel to *-a* may simply be allomorphs of an underlying *-a* suffix. These may derive from a single rule and thus not exemplify the characteristic East Sudanic suffixes.
[^404]: Data from Dawd & Hayward, "Nara." [^404]: Data from Dawd & Hayward, "Nara.”
## Nyima ## Nyima
@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ Nyima covers two related languages, Nyimang and Afitti, now usually known as Ama
**~~Table 14. Suppletive plural forms in Ama~~** **~~Table 14. Suppletive plural forms in Ama~~**
Reduplication can be used to express collectives, e.g., *ɖàmì* "egg"; *ɖàɖàmì* "all the eggs." Reduplication can be used to express collectives, e.g., *ɖàmì* "egg"; *ɖàɖàmì* "all the eggs.”
Otherwise the loss of most plural marking is very marked in comparison with related branches. For Dinik, De Voogt notes number marking briefly, which he states is only applied consistently to animates. Dinik has three plural markers, *-gòr, -ná,* and *-é.*[^999] A comparison of the lexicon of Dinik yields some possible evidence for fossil affixes. Dinik in particular has a wide range of nominals with *-Vk* suffixes (**Table 14**). Otherwise the loss of most plural marking is very marked in comparison with related branches. For Dinik, De Voogt notes number marking briefly, which he states is only applied consistently to animates. Dinik has three plural markers, *-gòr, -ná,* and *-é.*[^999] A comparison of the lexicon of Dinik yields some possible evidence for fossil affixes. Dinik in particular has a wide range of nominals with *-Vk* suffixes (**Table 14**).
@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ From this evidence, Baale has singulars in *-(N)A,* *-S,* and *-NV* and plurals
To judge by the data in Bender,[^410] Aka has a richer system of number marking than Gaahmg. Extracting the affixes from the system of number-marking, the following (at least) occur (**Table 20**): To judge by the data in Bender,[^410] Aka has a richer system of number marking than Gaahmg. Extracting the affixes from the system of number-marking, the following (at least) occur (**Table 20**):
[^410]: Bender, “The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan I”; Bender,"The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan II." [^410]: Bender, “The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan I”; Bender, "The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan II.”
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) | | Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ As with Gaamhg, nouns can have zero marking, singulatives a velar or underspecif
Temein consists of three languages, Temein, Keiga Jirru, and These.[^412] Surface forms for number marking in Temein are highly diverse and not easy to predict, even though the basic elements are relatively few. Temein languages operate a three-way system of number-marking with an unmarked form plus singulatives and pluratives, also known as “replacive.”[^413] However, the erosion of this system has meant that nouns where three terms occur synchronically are relatively rare. **Table 21** shows some examples of these: Temein consists of three languages, Temein, Keiga Jirru, and These.[^412] Surface forms for number marking in Temein are highly diverse and not easy to predict, even though the basic elements are relatively few. Temein languages operate a three-way system of number-marking with an unmarked form plus singulatives and pluratives, also known as “replacive.”[^413] However, the erosion of this system has meant that nouns where three terms occur synchronically are relatively rare. **Table 21** shows some examples of these:
[^412]: Blench, “Introduction to the Temein Languages.” [^412]: Blench, “Introduction to the Temein Languages.”
[^413]: See, e.g., Dimmendaal, “Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages," or Blench, “Introduction to the Temein Languages.” [^413]: See, e.g., Dimmendaal, “Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages,” or Blench, “Introduction to the Temein Languages.”
Language | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | Unmarked | [pl]({sc}) | Language | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | Unmarked | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -497,7 +497,7 @@ Daju languages also show evidence for the characteristic three-way number-markin
> Many nouns have three forms, representing mass or collective / unit / units. [...] The suffix is then replaced by another, or a further suffix is added, to denote the plural of the unit. [...][^414] > Many nouns have three forms, representing mass or collective / unit / units. [...] The suffix is then replaced by another, or a further suffix is added, to denote the plural of the unit. [...][^414]
[^414]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages," 96. [^414]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 96.
This is shown for two glosses in **Table 25**: This is shown for two glosses in **Table 25**:
@ -557,16 +557,27 @@ The singulative suffixes *-NV, -ʧV,* and *-V* (where *V* is a front vowel) can
The principal overview of noun morphology in West Nilotic is presented by Storch. Western Nilotic also has an emergent classifier system, described in some detail in Storch but omitted here. **Table 28** summarizes the affixes of West Nilotic: The principal overview of noun morphology in West Nilotic is presented by Storch. Western Nilotic also has an emergent classifier system, described in some detail in Storch but omitted here. **Table 28** summarizes the affixes of West Nilotic:
| Mayak | Mabaan | Jumjum | Dinka | Nuer | Anywa | Päri | Shilluk | Lüwo | Thuri | Belanda Bor | S. Lwoo | Labwor | Semantics | | Semantics | Mayak | Mabaan | Jumjum | Dinka | Nuer | Anywa | Päri |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| -(V)k | -k(ʌ̃) | -kV | -k, -V | | -k, -Ci, Cè | -ki, -ke | \*-k | -kʌ̀ | -k | | -k(V), -ke | -gV | general | | general | -(V)k | -k(ʌ̃) | -kV | -k, -V | | -k, -Ci, Cè | -ki, -ke |
| -(V)n | -Cin̪ | -ni | -N, -V | -ní, -V̪ | -Ci?, -Cè? | -Neʔ | -V(N) | -V, -ɛ, -NVɛ́ | -Ni, -in, -Nɛ́, -ɛ́n | | -ni, -n(í)n, -ne | -ni, -né | general | | general | -(V)n | -Cin̪ | -ni | -N, -V | -ní, -V̪ | -Ci?, -Cè? | -Neʔ |
| | -ǎn̪ | | | | -i | -e | (.ˋ), (ʾ) | -ɛ́ | -ɛ́ | | -e | -é, i | round, mass, small | | round, mass, small | | -ǎn̪ | | | | -i | -e |
| | -kù | | | -c | -Ci | -ì | | -ì | -ì | | -i | -i | body | | body | | -kù | | | -c | -Ci | -ì |
| | | | | (\*-N?) | | | | | | | | | space | | space| | | | | (\*-N?) | | |
| | -λ | | | -y | -è | | [.ˋ] | | | | | | unspecified | | unspecified | | -λ | | | -y | -è | |
| -it̪ | -t̪ǎn | | -t̪ | -t̪ | -t, -Cè | -rí, -te | -Vdi | -t̪ | -d̪i | | \*-ti, -(t)àʔ | -(C)áʔ | unspecified | | unspecified | -it̪ | -t̪ǎn | | -t̪ | -t̪ | -t, -Cè | -rí, -te |
| -ḓín | | | | | | | | | | | | | abstract | | -ḓín | | | | | | |
| Semantics | Shilluk | Lüwo | Thuri | Belanda Bor | S. Lwoo | Labwor |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| general | \*-k | -kʌ̀ | -k | | -k(V), -ke | -gV |
| general | -V(N) | -V, -ɛ, -NVɛ́ | -Ni, -in, -Nɛ́, -ɛ́n | | -ni, -n(í)n, -ne | -ni, -né |
| round, mass, small | (.ˋ), (ʾ) | -ɛ́ | -ɛ́ | | -e | -é, i |
| body | | -ì | -ì | | -i | -i |
| space| | | | | | |
| unspecified | [.ˋ] | | | | | |
| unspecified | -Vdi | -t̪ | -d̪i | | \*-ti, -(t)àʔ | -(C)áʔ |
| abstract| | | | | | |
**~~Table 28. Number marking affixes in West Nilotic[^418]~~** **~~Table 28. Number marking affixes in West Nilotic[^418]~~**
@ -676,7 +687,7 @@ A feature of East Sudanic, and indeed Nilo-Saharan more generally, is extensive
**~~Table 33. East Sudanic nominal affixes and associated~~** **~~Table 33. East Sudanic nominal affixes and associated~~**
The resultant pattern is not perfect but still indicative for the structure of East Sudanic. The number-marking suffixes form complete sets in En languages, with -S attested only in Nara. This implies that all five affixes were present in proto-East Sudanic but were preferentially lost in the Ek languages. Affix-stacking, though present in Nubian, is otherwise absent in Ek languages but is likely to be a retention from proto-East Sudanic. Gemination is too sparsely distributed to draw any conclusions, but is plausibly an independent development of no classificatory significance. The resultant pattern is not perfect but still indicative for the structure of East Sudanic. The number-marking suffixes form complete sets in En languages, with *-S* attested only in Nara. This implies that all five affixes were present in proto-East Sudanic but were preferentially lost in the Ek languages. Affix-stacking, though present in Nubian, is otherwise absent in Ek languages but is likely to be a retention from proto-East Sudanic. Gemination is too sparsely distributed to draw any conclusions, but is plausibly an independent development of no classificatory significance.
# Internal Structure of East Sudanic # Internal Structure of East Sudanic
@ -696,9 +707,9 @@ The attentive reader will have observed that many of the affixes identified in t
I have explored this morphology in the Kadu languages while Gilley has looked into number-marking in Katcha in some detail.[^601] Typically, Kadu languages have a three-term system with a singulative in *-t* and plural in *-k* and *-N.* They also have case-marking, which is only sporadically attested in East Sudanic languages and cannot be reconstructed, as well as sex-gender, which is entirely absent. This suggests that the *-T, -K,* and *-N* affixes can be reconstructed further back in Nilo-Saharan, but the *-V* and *-S* are distinctive to East Sudanic. The gemination found in Nara and East Nilotic is not recorded in Kadu, but may not be reconstructible to proto-East Sudanic. I have explored this morphology in the Kadu languages while Gilley has looked into number-marking in Katcha in some detail.[^601] Typically, Kadu languages have a three-term system with a singulative in *-t* and plural in *-k* and *-N.* They also have case-marking, which is only sporadically attested in East Sudanic languages and cannot be reconstructed, as well as sex-gender, which is entirely absent. This suggests that the *-T, -K,* and *-N* affixes can be reconstructed further back in Nilo-Saharan, but the *-V* and *-S* are distinctive to East Sudanic. The gemination found in Nara and East Nilotic is not recorded in Kadu, but may not be reconstructible to proto-East Sudanic.
[^601]: Blench, "The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation"; Gilley, "Katcha Noun Morphology." [^601]: Blench, "The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation"; Gilley, "Katcha Noun Morphology.”
The Kuliak languages, a small group in northeast Uganda which includes Ik, So, and Nyangi, were originally included by Greenberg within East Sudanic, but have long been treated as an independent branch of Nilo-Saharan. However, their lexicon has been heavily impacted both by their immediate neighbors, the Karimojong, but also by Southern Nilotic in some past era. Moreover, Lamberti has noted striking resemblances to the East Cushitic languages.[^602] Heine presents an overview and reconstruction of Kuliak as it was known at the period.[^603] More recently, Carlin and Schrock have provided extensive documentation of Soo and Ik (Icétôd).[^604] Kuliak languages have three-term number marking, with singulative in -T and plurative in -K, -N, as well as allowing affix-stacking, but also have a striking nominal case-marking system not present in East Sudanic. There is no evidence for gemination. The Kuliak languages, a small group in northeast Uganda which includes Ik, So, and Nyangi, were originally included by Greenberg within East Sudanic, but have long been treated as an independent branch of Nilo-Saharan. However, their lexicon has been heavily impacted both by their immediate neighbors, the Karimojong, but also by Southern Nilotic in some past era. Moreover, Lamberti has noted striking resemblances to the East Cushitic languages.[^602] Heine presents an overview and reconstruction of Kuliak as it was known at the period.[^603] More recently, Carlin and Schrock have provided extensive documentation of Soo and Ik (Icétôd).[^604] Kuliak languages have three-term number marking, with singulative in *-T* and plurative in *-K, -N,* as well as allowing affix-stacking, but also have a striking nominal case-marking system not present in East Sudanic. There is no evidence for gemination.
[^602]: Lamberti, *Kuliak and Cushitic.* [^602]: Lamberti, *Kuliak and Cushitic.*
[^603]: Heine, *The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.* [^603]: Heine, *The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.*
@ -726,7 +737,7 @@ Alamin Mubarak, Suzan. ![“An Initial Description of Laggori Noun Morphology an
Aviles, Arthur J. ![*The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.*](bib:881b818e-77c1-4714-99fe-90e38630f6a7) MA Thesis, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks, 2008. Aviles, Arthur J. ![*The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.*](bib:881b818e-77c1-4714-99fe-90e38630f6a7) MA Thesis, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks, 2008.
Bell, Herman. !["Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian."](bib:9926e196-3eea-4b7c-856c-6272d4386c75) *Sudan Notes and Records* 7 (1975): pp. 1–36. Bell, Herman. !["Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian.”](bib:9926e196-3eea-4b7c-856c-6272d4386c75) *Sudan Notes and Records* 7 (1975): pp. 1–36.
Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Carbondale: SIU, 2003. Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Carbondale: SIU, 2003.
@ -750,7 +761,7 @@ Blench, Roger M. ![“Introduction to the Temein Languages.”](bib:06802bbc-af2
Blench, Roger M. ![“The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation: Between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic.”](bib:8a8ae1e0-6f4b-478a-a292-fd6247aacdbc) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 101–127. Blench, Roger M. ![“The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation: Between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic.”](bib:8a8ae1e0-6f4b-478a-a292-fd6247aacdbc) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 101–127.
Boyeldieu, Pascal. !["Dadjo-Sila."](bib:38130fe4-3b9f-49ca-8a18-9e609ccd504f) In *La qualification dans les langues africaines,* edited by Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler, and Kerstin Winkelmann. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2008: pp. 57–70. Boyeldieu, Pascal. !["Dadjo-Sila.”](bib:38130fe4-3b9f-49ca-8a18-9e609ccd504f) In *La qualification dans les langues africaines,* edited by Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler, and Kerstin Winkelmann. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2008: pp. 57–70.
Browne, Gerald M. ![*Old Nubian Dictionary.*](bib:d9505774-ee71-4ab7-b076-96f26507ca47) Leuven: Peeters, 1996. Browne, Gerald M. ![*Old Nubian Dictionary.*](bib:d9505774-ee71-4ab7-b076-96f26507ca47) Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
@ -768,7 +779,7 @@ Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan.”](bib:
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![*Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages.*](bib:16e531a8-a386-4b05-9cbb-3ecc8ea3fdc3) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2011. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![*Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages.*](bib:16e531a8-a386-4b05-9cbb-3ecc8ea3fdc3) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2011.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin." *Afrikanistik Online* 11, no. 3 (2014): pp. 1–23. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin.” *Afrikanistik Online* 11, no. 3 (2014): pp. 1–23.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages.”](bib:3d490619-8e8b-408f-aaea-5e32cf815750) *Anthropological Linguistics* 42, no. 2 (2000): pp. 214–261. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages.”](bib:3d490619-8e8b-408f-aaea-5e32cf815750) *Anthropological Linguistics* 42, no. 2 (2000): pp. 214–261.
@ -792,7 +803,7 @@ Hayward, Richard J. ![“Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara.”](
Heine, Bernd. ![*The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.*](bib:036e86e0-9fc8-4474-9f41-df1e76f76101) Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1976. Heine, Bernd. ![*The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.*](bib:036e86e0-9fc8-4474-9f41-df1e76f76101) Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1976.
Jakobi, Angelika & Ahmed Hamdan. !["Number Marking on Karko Nouns."](bib:89da9411-5890-4217-84f7-0625fe225063) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 271–289. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D62110017](https://doi.org/10.5070/D62110017). Jakobi, Angelika & Ahmed Hamdan. !["Number Marking on Karko Nouns.”](bib:89da9411-5890-4217-84f7-0625fe225063) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 271–289. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D62110017](https://doi.org/10.5070/D62110017).
Joseph, Clement Lopeyok et al. ![*Laarim Grammar Book.*](bib:ce21cf9b-3ab4-424a-a594-d2ca9f3f17d0) Juba: SIL-Sudan, 2012. Joseph, Clement Lopeyok et al. ![*Laarim Grammar Book.*](bib:ce21cf9b-3ab4-424a-a594-d2ca9f3f17d0) Juba: SIL-Sudan, 2012.
@ -800,7 +811,7 @@ Kellermann, P. ![*Eine grammatische Skizze des Tama auf der Basis der Daten von
Lamberti, Marcello. ![*Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study.*](bib:5e8f9f20-9cc9-4c4c-8592-a4370f20b335) Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1988. Lamberti, Marcello. ![*Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study.*](bib:5e8f9f20-9cc9-4c4c-8592-a4370f20b335) Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1988.
Norton, Russell. "Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective." *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): ![this issue](article:norton.md) Norton, Russell. "Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): ![this issue](article:norton.md)
Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–94. Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–94.
@ -842,6 +853,6 @@ Voßen, Rainer. ![*The Eastern Nilotes: Linguistic and Historical Reconstruction
Werner, Roland. ![*Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).*](bib:56735ece-24da-4960-9101-ba484f7e57f7) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993. Werner, Roland. ![*Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).*](bib:56735ece-24da-4960-9101-ba484f7e57f7) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
Yigezu, Moges & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. [“Notes on Baale.”](bib:36f35b75-5629-478b-b969-f806474f54a0) In *Surmic Languages and Cultures,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273–317. Yigezu, Moges & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. ![“Notes on Baale.”](bib:36f35b75-5629-478b-b969-f806474f54a0) In *Surmic Languages and Cultures,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273–317.
Zwarts, Joost. ![“Number in Endo-Marakwet.”](bib:7e4e38f4-ed1f-4f6f-a45d-c283fe4474c6) In *Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001,* edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2007: pp. 281–294. Zwarts, Joost. ![“Number in Endo-Marakwet.”](bib:7e4e38f4-ed1f-4f6f-a45d-c283fe4474c6) In *Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001,* edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2007: pp. 281–294.

143
content/article/jakobi.md
View file

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ keywords: ["Nubian", "comparative linguistics", "Nyima", "Northern East Sudanic"
# Introduction {#1} # 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, 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] 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 Sudanese–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. [^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). [^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).
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Since Greenberg’s classification of the African languages there is agreement t
[^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’.” [^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. [^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 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] 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. [^11]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* chap. 5.
@ -45,9 +45,9 @@ Probably due to frequent contact between speakers of Nyima and speakers of Kordo
| Ama | Mandal | PKN | NN | Gloss | | Ama | Mandal | PKN | NN | Gloss |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| burgɔ̀l “thief” | borgòl “thief” | \*borg- | maag- (An), mark- (No) | steal | | *burgɔ̀l* “thief” | *borgòl* “thief” | \*borg- | maag- (An), mark- (No) | steal |
| kwɔrʃè, kɔrʃè | kwarʃè | \*korʃu | gorij (An), gorjo (No) | six | | *kwɔrʃè, kɔrʃè* | *kwarʃè* | \*korʃu | gorij (An), gorjo (No) | six |
| tājò | tāj | \*tɛj(j)ɛ | dessi (An, No) | green, unripe | | *tājò* | tāj | \*tɛj(j)ɛ | dessi (An, No) | green, unripe |
**~~Table 1. Ama – Mandal – PKN correspondences[^16]~~** **~~Table 1. Ama – Mandal – PKN correspondences[^16]~~**
@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Examples of the close sound and meaning correspondences between Afitti and Proto
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. 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)gir,* 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.* 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)gir,* 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 | | | Nubian | | Ama | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Presumably, the Ama inceptive *-ɪŋ*[^17] is cognate with the Nubian inchoative
[^21]: According to Kauczor (*Die bergnubische Sprache,* §§445–448), the inchoative is realized by the complex singular suffix *-n-er* and the plural suffix *-ŋ.* It is the plural suffix which looks like a cognate of the corresponding Nile Nubian inchoative suffixes. [^21]: According to Kauczor (*Die bergnubische Sprache,* §§445–448), the inchoative is realized by the complex singular suffix *-n-er* and the plural suffix *-ŋ.* It is the plural suffix which looks like a cognate of the corresponding Nile Nubian inchoative suffixes.
[^22]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 93. [^22]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 93.
Reconstructable lexical and grammatical items are indicators of a normal generational transmission.[^23] They are often conceived of indicators of a continuous divergent development from the assumed proto-language to its daughter languages, the gradual divergence being depicted with a family tree model. However, such tree diagrams can account neither for diffusion or convergence between genetically related languages, nor for language contact that may have induced changes such as borrowings and other instances of interference. Evidence of contact-induced changes calls for a historical interpretation and for the identification of the donor language,[^24] as illustrated by the Ama and Afitti lexical items adopted from Kordofan Nubian (**Tables 1 and 2**). Another case in point is the so-called pre-Nile Nubian substrate. It comprises several basic lexical items in Old Nubian and Nobiin which do not have cognates in the other Nubian languages. Rilly supposes that they originate from other northern East Sudanic languages.[^25] Reconstructable lexical and grammatical items are indicators of a normal generational transmission.[^23] They are often conceived as indicators of a continuous divergent development from the assumed proto-language to its daughter languages, the gradual divergence being depicted with a family tree model. However, such tree diagrams can account neither for diffusion or convergence between genetically related languages, nor for language contact that may have induced changes such as borrowings and other instances of interference. Evidence of contact-induced changes calls for a historical interpretation and for the identification of the donor language,[^24] as illustrated by the Ama and Afitti lexical items adopted from Kordofan Nubian (**Tables 1 and 2**). Another case in point is the so-called pre-Nile Nubian substrate. It comprises several basic lexical items in Old Nubian and Nobiin which do not have cognates in the other Nubian languages. Rilly supposes that they originate from other northern East Sudanic languages.[^25]
[^23]: Noonan, “Genetic Classification and Language Contact.” [^23]: Noonan, “Genetic Classification and Language Contact.”
[^24]: Dimmendaal, “Comparative African Linguistics.” [^24]: Dimmendaal, “Comparative African Linguistics.”
@ -100,19 +100,19 @@ According to Dimmendaal, “[v]erbal derivation in the Nilo-Saharan languages co
[^31]: Dimmendaal, “Nilo-Saharan,” p. 52. [^31]: Dimmendaal, “Nilo-Saharan,” p. 52.
The present paper will show in detail that Proto-Nubian had seven verbal derivational devices: two causative suffixes ([2.1](#21) and [2.2](#22)), two applicatives ([3.3](#33) to [3.5](#35)), two verbal number suffixes ([4.1](#41) and [4.2](#42)), and a causative prefix ([5](#5)). The section on the applicatives ([3](#3)) is extensive because it will show that two donative verbs can be used as independent lexical verbs and also as valency-increasing devices. I will argue that applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages are realized as converb constructions rather than as derivational suffixes, the latter being attested in the western branch of the Nubian family. The present paper will show in detail that Proto-Nubian had seven verbal derivational devices: two causative suffixes ([2.1](#21) and [2.2](#22)); two applicatives ([3.3](#33) to [3.5](#35)); two verbal number suffixes ([4.1](#41) and [4.2](#42)); and a causative prefix ([5](#5)). The section on the applicatives ([3](#3)) is extensive because it will show that two donative verbs can be used as independent lexical verbs and also as valency-increasing devices. I will argue that applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages are realized as converb constructions rather than as derivational suffixes, the latter being attested in the western branch of the Nubian family.
Whereas the derivational devices which are found in both branches of the Nubian language group can be reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, there are further verb extensions with a more limited distribution. The Nile Nubian languages, for instance, have passive extensions ([6.1](#61)); Mattokki and Andaandi exhibit a plural object extension ([6.2](#62)); and a plural stem extension is attested in Kordofan Nubian and Midob ([6.3](#63)). A reciprocal suffix ([6.4](#64)) as well as some plural stem extensions occur in Kordofan Nubian ([6.5](#65)). Kordofan Nubian and Midob, meanwhile, exhibit a valency-decreasing suffix ([6.6](#66)). Moreover, in Midob a distinct pluractional extension is found ([6.7](#67)). Whereas the derivational devices which are found in both branches of the Nubian language group can be reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, there are further verb extensions with a more limited distribution. The Nile Nubian languages, for instance, have passive extensions ([6.1](#61)); Mattokki and Andaandi exhibit a plural object extension ([6.2](#62)); and a plural stem extension is attested in Kordofan Nubian and Midob ([6.3](#63)). A reciprocal suffix ([6.4](#64)) as well as some plural stem extensions occur in Kordofan Nubian ([6.5](#65)). Kordofan Nubian and Midob, meanwhile, exhibit a valency-decreasing suffix ([6.6](#66)). Moreover, in Midob a distinct pluractional extension is found ([6.7](#67)).
Ama, too, has a rather rich inventory of derivational extensions.[^32] It has suffixes for passive, ventive, directional/causative ([5.2](#52)), mediocausative, reciprocal, distributive ([6.3](#63)), pluractional, and dual ([6.4](#64)). In addition, Ama has a causative prefix ([5.2](#52)). The range of Afitti verb extensions, however, is still little known. Ama, too, has a rather rich inventory of derivational extensions.[^32] It has suffixes for passive, ventive, directional/causative ([5.2](#52)); mediocausative, reciprocal, distributive ([6.3](#63)); pluractional; and dual ([6.4](#64)). In addition, Ama has a causative prefix ([5.2](#52)). The range of Afitti verb extensions, however, is still little known.
[^32]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages” and ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md). [^32]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages” and ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md).
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] The Ama data are drawn from Stevenson’s survey of the Nuba Mountain languages, Tucker & Bryan’s grammatical 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). [^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).
The Old Nubian data mostly come from the legend of Saint Mina but also from a few other sources quoted from Van Gerven Oei’s comprehensive Old Nubian grammar.[^38] The Old Nubian data mostly come from the legend of Saint Mina but also from a few other sources quoted from Van Gerven Oei’s forthcoming comprehensive Old Nubian grammar.[^38]
[^38]: Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas*; Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.* [^38]: Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas*; Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.*
@ -158,12 +158,12 @@ Although Van Gerven Oei conceives *-(i)r* as a “transitive” suffix which is
The ditransitive construction derived by the causative *-(i)r*-extension on the verb ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ “learn” can be illustrated by the following example. Assigning the role of causer to the addressee of the request, the causative of the transitive verb allows two accusative-marked arguments, the first being assigned the role of causee and the second the role of patient.[^ex7] The ditransitive construction derived by the causative *-(i)r*-extension on the verb ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ “learn” can be illustrated by the following example. Assigning the role of causer to the addressee of the request, the causative of the transitive verb allows two accusative-marked arguments, the first being assigned the role of causee and the second the role of patient.[^ex7]
[^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* ex. ??? (gr 2.4). [CHECK] [^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §10.2.1.
{{< gloss "(7)" >}} {{< gloss "(7)" >}}
{r} ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲟⲛⲱ ϣⲟⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗⲓⲣⲉⲥⲟ {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})| {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” {r} “Teach me the book” (gr 2.4)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
Browne points out that the “causative element may be weakened and become apparently redundant,”[^43] that is, some verbs can occur with or without the *-(i)r*-suffix without a change in their meaning. Browne points out that the “causative element may be weakened and become apparently redundant,”[^43] that is, some verbs can occur with or without the *-(i)r*-suffix without a change in their meaning.
@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ It is conceivable that the loss of morphological meaning observed with *-(i)r* h
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] 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]: Examples from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§3670–76 and §3722; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian. A Lexicon,* p. 44. [^52]: Examples from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§3670–76 and §3722; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 44.
| | Andaandi | | | | | | Andaandi | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -306,13 +306,13 @@ Second, Tagle *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* is attested on some transitive verbs, but not
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (43) | ūlt-ír-ì | “breastfeed!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ūlt-ér-ì | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | | (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) | ùj-ír-ì | “put down, lay down!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ùj-èr-í | id. [oj pl]({sc}) |
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). 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. 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, occuring in singular form. Because of the generic reading of *ɕə̄kə̄l,* the verb requires to be realized by a plural stem.
{{< gloss "(45)" >}} {{< gloss "(45)" >}}
{r} **Karko** {r} **Karko**
@ -361,6 +361,9 @@ As suggested by the voiced or voiceless velar stop, [g] or [k] and the close pho
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *‑(i)gir | -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ | -kir, -in-kir | -igir, -gid-di | ‑(i)gir, -(i)n-gir | -iir < -eg-ir [oj.sg]({sc}), -eer < -ig-er [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɪg-ɪr [oj.sg]({sc}), -ɪg-ɛr [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɛɛr < -ɛg-ɪr | -ée-k, -èe-k | | *‑(i)gir | -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ | -kir, -in-kir | -igir, -gid-di | ‑(i)gir, -(i)n-gir | -iir < -eg-ir [oj.sg]({sc}), -eer < -ig-er [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɪg-ɪr [oj.sg]({sc}), -ɪg-ɛr [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɛɛr < -ɛg-ɪr | -ée-k, -èe-k |
**~~Table 5. The causative extension *\*-(i)gir*~~**
Old Nubian -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ – alternatively spelled as -ⲅⲉⲣ -ⲅⲣ̄, -ⲓⲅⲣ̄, -ⲕⲁⲣ, and -ⲕⲣ̄ – can be attached to nominals and verbs. According to Van Gerven Oei, the Old Nubian causative -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ developed from an auxiliary verb, which later turned into a derivational suffix.[^65] Old Nubian -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ – alternatively spelled as -ⲅⲉⲣ -ⲅⲣ̄, -ⲓⲅⲣ̄, -ⲕⲁⲣ, and -ⲕⲣ̄ – can be attached to nominals and verbs. According to Van Gerven Oei, the Old Nubian causative -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ developed from an auxiliary verb, which later turned into a derivational suffix.[^65]
[^65]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.2.2. [^65]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.2.2.
@ -376,7 +379,7 @@ The following examples from Browne’s dictionary show that it derives transitiv
| (53) | ⲓϭ, ⲉϭ | “send, impel” [tr]({sc}) | ⲓϭ-ⲅⲣ̄ | “cause to send” [ditr]({sc}) | | (53) | ⲓϭ, ⲉϭ | “send, impel” [tr]({sc}) | ⲓϭ-ⲅⲣ̄ | “cause to send” [ditr]({sc}) |
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. Browne points out that -(ⲁ)ⲣ ([2.1](#21)) 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. [^67]: Browne, *Old Nubian Grammar,* p. 48.
@ -460,7 +463,7 @@ Besides attaching to verbal bases, Andaandi *‑(i)gir* can attach to nominal ba
| (67) | dolli | “deep” | doll-igir | “cause or allow to be or become deep, deepen” | | (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” | | (68) | owwi | “two” | oww-igir | “cause or allow to be or become two, double” |
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] 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. [^81]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §3688.
[^82]: Werner, p.c., October 2020. [^82]: Werner, p.c., October 2020.
@ -550,19 +553,19 @@ Midob *ètt* represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the sing
{r} “I sold my goats” {r} “I sold my goats”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /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. 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.
[^90]: The reconstructed PN lexical items are drawn from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 273, the corresponding Midob items from Werner’s Midob–English vocabulary in *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 75–143. [^90]: The reconstructed PN lexical items are drawn from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 273, the corresponding Midob items from Werner’s Midob–English vocabulary in *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 75–143.
As a result of the preceding considerations, the Midob causative suffix *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is assumed to originate from a complex morpheme composed of *\*‑ir* and *\*‑(i)g,* that is, from a metathesized form of *\*‑(i)g-ir.* The question what motivated this morphotactic change cannot presently be answered. As a result of the preceding considerations, the Midob causative suffix *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is assumed to originate from a complex morpheme composed of *\*‑ir* and *\*‑(i)g,* that is, from a metathesized form of *\*‑(i)g-ir.* The question what motivated this morphotactic change cannot be answered presently.
# The Applicative {#3} # The Applicative {#3}
The applicative – more precisely, the benefactive applicative – is a valency-increasing morphological device which adds an object argument to the basic construction. This object argument is commonly assigned the role of beneficiary (or, depending on the semantics of the lexical verb, a semantically related role such as a recipient or addressee). The applicative – more precisely, the benefactive applicative – is a valency-increasing morphological device which adds an object argument to the basic construction. This object argument is commonly assigned the role of beneficiary (or, depending on the semantics of the lexical verb, a semantically related role such as a recipient or addressee).
Applicative constructions in the Nubian languages are based on a grammaticalized “give” verb. In the Nile Nubian languages, the grammaticalization path has led to a periphrastic applicative construction, comprising a nonfinite lexical verb and a finite “give” verb. In the western branch, by contrast, the grammaticalization process has gone further, because “give” has adopted the status of a derivational applicative extension. Both the Nile Nubian and the western Nubian applicative constructions are highly productive. Applicative constructions in the Nubian languages are based on a grammaticalized verb “give.” In the Nile Nubian languages, the grammaticalization path has led to a periphrastic applicative construction, comprising a nonfinite lexical verb and a finite donative verb. In the western branch, by contrast, the grammaticalization process has gone further, because “give” has adopted the status of a derivational applicative extension. Both the Nile Nubian and the western Nubian applicative constructions are highly productive.
Before exploring these applicative constructions in more detail, we show in [3.1](#31) that most Nubian languages have two “give” verbs serving as independent lexical verbs. In [3.2](#32) we introduce the concept of “converb,” as applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages can be identified as converb constructions, see [3.3](#33) and [3.5](#35). Before exploring these applicative constructions in more detail, we show in [3.1](#31) that most Nubian languages have two donative verbs serving as independent lexical verbs. In [3.2](#32) we introduce the concept of “converb,” as applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages can be identified as converb constructions, see [3.3](#33) and [3.5](#35).
## Two Verbs for "give" {#31} ## Two Verbs for "give" {#31}
@ -576,7 +579,7 @@ This distinction is still reflected in Nile Nubian. In the languages of the west
[^93]: The alveolar *t* as an initial segment of the two donative verbs is also attested in Uncunwee, as seen in Comfort & Jakobi, “The Verb ‘to give’ as a Verbal Extension in Uncunwee.” [^93]: The alveolar *t* as an initial segment of the two donative verbs is also attested in Uncunwee, as seen in Comfort & Jakobi, “The Verb ‘to give’ as a Verbal Extension in Uncunwee.”
Proto-Nubian word-initial *\*t* (as, for instance, in *\*toor* “enter,” *\*tar* “he, she,” *\*tossi-gu* “three”[^94]) is regularly reflected by a dental *t̪* in the Kordofan Nubian languages. However, *\*tir* “give” is unexpectedly reflected by Karko *tìì,* i.e., with an initial alveolar, rather than with the expected dental stop *t̪.* On the other hand, the shift of initial *\*d* (as in *\*deen*) to the Kordofan Nubian alveolar *t* is quite regular. It is also attested in reflexes of *\*duŋ(-ur)* “blind,” *\*diji* “five,” and *\*dii* “die.” The fact that Karko *tìì* and *tèn* both exhibit an initial alveolar stop indicates the beginning of a morphological blending of the originally distinct donative verbs. This process of simplification is already completed in Tagle *tí,* suggesting the loss of the lexical and semantic contrast originally associated with the two verbs. As Tagle *tí* can neither be shown to be a reflex of *\*tir* nor of *\*deen,* it is considered to be the unpredictable outcome of that blending and simplification process. Proto-Nubian word-initial *\*t* (as, for instance, in *\*toor* “enter”; *\*tar* “he, she”; *\*tossi-gu* “three”[^94]) is regularly reflected by a dental *t̪* in the Kordofan Nubian languages. However, *\*tir* “give” is unexpectedly reflected by Karko *tìì,* i.e., with an initial alveolar, rather than with the expected dental stop *t̪.* On the other hand, the shift of initial *\*d* (as in *\*deen*) to the Kordofan Nubian alveolar *t* is quite regular. It is also attested in reflexes of *\*duŋ(-ur)* “blind”; *\*diji* “five”; and *\*dii* “die.” The fact that Karko *tìì* and *tèn* both exhibit an initial alveolar stop indicates the beginning of a morphological blending of the originally distinct donative verbs. This process of simplification is already completed in Tagle *tí,* suggesting the loss of the lexical and semantic contrast originally associated with the two verbs. As Tagle *tí* can neither be shown to be a reflex of *\*tir* nor of *\*deen,* it is considered to be the unpredictable outcome of that blending and simplification process.
[^94]: See the sets of cognates in the appendix of Rilly’s *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 518, no. 182. [^94]: See the sets of cognates in the appendix of Rilly’s *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 518, no. 182.
@ -617,7 +620,7 @@ The Old Nubian reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen* are ⲧⲣ̄ (*tir*) and ⲇⲉ
{r} “give me!” {r} “give me!”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /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*.[^98] 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 [3pl]({sc}) pronominal recipient “(to) them” requires the pluractional *-(i)j*-extension combined with the plural object marker *‑ir* or *‑(i)r-ir*.[^98]
[^98]: Examples from Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 128. [^98]: Examples from Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 128.
@ -707,7 +710,7 @@ Before embarking on a more detailed account of these applicative constructions i
[^102]:Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.* chap. 7. [^102]:Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.* chap. 7.
[^103]:Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 167–170. [^103]:Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 167–170.
Previous scholars of Nile Nubian languages used various other terms for converbs, including “participle,”[^104] “adjunctive,”[^105] “verbum conjunctum,”[^106] “a-Form,”[^107], or “predicate marker.”[^108] Only in Hintze’s and Smagina’s studies does the term converb occur,[^109] apparently because these authors were acquainted with the concept of converb in Slavic, Turkish, and Mongolian studies. Previous scholars of Nile Nubian languages used various other terms for converbs, including “participle,”[^104] “adjunctive,”[^105] “verbum conjunctum,”[^106] “a-Form,”[^107] or “predicate marker.”[^108] Only in Hintze’s and Smagina’s studies does the term converb occur,[^109] apparently because these authors were acquainted with the concept of converb in Slavic, Turkish, and Mongolian studies.
[^104]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 292; Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 25. [^104]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 292; Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 25.
[^105]: Browne, *Old Nubian Grammar,* p. 64; Hintze, “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II,” p. 287; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 137ff. [^105]: Browne, *Old Nubian Grammar,* p. 64; Hintze, “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II,” p. 287; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 137ff.
@ -863,7 +866,7 @@ Such collocations and the grammaticalization of adjacent verbs are also manifest
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] 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]
[^141]: Examples from Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas,* pp. 12, 7. Glossing is taken from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §8.3, ex. 209 and §7.2, ex. 164. [CHECK] Unlike Van Gerven Oei, I consider *-ir* in *ook-ir-s-n-a* to be a causative, rather than a transitive extension (see [2.1](#21)). [^141]: Examples from Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas,* pp. 12, 7. Glossing is taken from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §15.1.3 and §7. Unlike Van Gerven Oei, I consider *-ir* in *ook-ir-s-n-a* to be a causative, rather than a transitive extension (see [2.1](#21)).
{{< gloss "(121)" >}} {{< gloss "(121)" >}}
{r} **Old Nubian** {r} **Old Nubian**
@ -897,7 +900,7 @@ When the converb expresses an event simultaneous with the event expressed by the
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. [^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. Example from ibid., [CHECK]. [^146]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §11.1.2. Example from ibid., §11.1.1.1.
{{< gloss "(125)" >}} {{< gloss "(125)" >}}
{r} ⲥ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲕⲕⲟⲛⲁ ⲧⲱⲉⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲁ ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲓⳝ[ⲁ̄]· ⳟⲁⲗⲓ̈ⳝⲟⲩⲁⲇⲇⲛ[ⲁ]ⲉⲛⲕⲱ {r} ⲥ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲕⲕⲟⲛⲁ ⲧⲱⲉⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲁ ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲓⳝ[ⲁ̄]· ⳟⲁⲗⲓ̈ⳝⲟⲩⲁⲇⲇⲛ[ⲁ]ⲉⲛⲕⲱ
@ -936,7 +939,7 @@ In the bipartite Old Nubian applicative construction, the stem of the lexical ve
{{< gloss "(128)" >}} {{< gloss "(128)" >}}
{r} **Old Nubian** {r} **Old Nubian**
{r} ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲧⲁⲛ ̀ ⲉⲓⲗⲁ ̀ ⲟⲩⲧⲣ̄ⲁ ⲧⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ {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})| {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) {r} “she placed the egg in his hand” (M 7.4–6)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
@ -1012,7 +1015,7 @@ Although *\*tir* originally only referred to 3rd or 2nd person recipients/benefi
## The Applicative in the Kordofan Nubian Languages {#34} ## The Applicative in the Kordofan Nubian Languages {#34}
Unlike the Nile Nubian applicatives where a donative verb operates in an asymmetric converb construction, applicatives in the languages of the western branch employ a donative verb as an applicative suffix attached to the lexical verb stem by means of the linker *‑(i)n.* In the introduction to [3](#3) we have already pointed out that – except for their imperative forms – Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions exhibit a single donative verb, which is neither a regular reflex of *\*tir* nor of *\*deen.* Moreover, like *‑(i)n-tir* in Midob, the applicative extension in the Kordofan Nubian languages can refer to a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary. This means that languages of the western branch have lost the original distinction of two donative verbs. Unlike the Nile Nubian applicatives where a donative verb operates in an asymmetric converb construction, applicatives in the languages of the western branch employ a donative verb as an applicative suffix attached to the lexical verb stem by means of the linker *‑(i)n.* In the introduction to [3](#3) we have already pointed out that – except for their imperative forms – Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions exhibit a single donative verb, which is neither a regular reflex of *\*tir* nor of *\*deen.* Moreover, like *‑(i)n-tir* in Midob, the applicative extension in the Kordofan Nubian languages can refer to a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary. This means that languages of the western branch have lost the original distinction between the two donative verbs.
| Dil | Ta | Ka | | Dil | Ta | Ka |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -1071,7 +1074,7 @@ Applicative extentions may attach to an intransitive or transitive verb stem, as
{r} “my existence made your life good.”/ lit. “… made the place good for you” (This is said to children to remind them that they are dependent of their parents and that they have to pay them respect.) {r} “my existence made your life good.”/ lit. “… made the place good for you” (This is said to children to remind them that they are dependent of their parents and that they have to pay them respect.)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
As shown in this section, applicative constructions in the Kordofan Nubian languages use a single “give” verb, which adds an object argument whose referent may be a 1st, 2nd or 3rd person beneficiary. This simplification of the original system is also attested in Midob ([3.3](#33)). As shown in this section, applicative constructions in the Kordofan Nubian languages use a single donative verb, which adds an object argument whose referent may be a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary. This simplification of the original system is also attested in Midob ([3.3](#33)).
## The Applicative Based on *\*deen* ## The Applicative Based on *\*deen*
@ -1085,12 +1088,12 @@ Reflexes of *\*deen* “give to 1st person” are attested in all Nile Nubian ap
When Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ “give to 1st person” is employed as a valence operator, the resulting applicative is a bipartite construction composed of V1 – a lexical verb stem marked by the converb marker ‑ⲁ – plus the finite ⲇⲉⲛ as V2. The plural number of a 1st person beneficiary is reflected by the pluractional extension ‑ⳝ (see [4.1](#41)). Example (144) also shows that the values of the inflectional suffixes on the main verb – with ‑ⲉ-ⲥⲟ marking the imperative form in a command – have scope over the preceding converb, which means that it is also conceived as an imperative form, even though it does not show the corresponding inflectional suffixes.[^170] When Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ “give to 1st person” is employed as a valence operator, the resulting applicative is a bipartite construction composed of V1 – a lexical verb stem marked by the converb marker ‑ⲁ – plus the finite ⲇⲉⲛ as V2. The plural number of a 1st person beneficiary is reflected by the pluractional extension ‑ⳝ (see [4.1](#41)). Example (144) also shows that the values of the inflectional suffixes on the main verb – with ‑ⲉ-ⲥⲟ marking the imperative form in a command – have scope over the preceding converb, which means that it is also conceived as an imperative form, even though it does not show the corresponding inflectional suffixes.[^170]
[^170]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* [CHECK]. Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ is here written with a final ⳡ rather than ⲛ, thus mirroring its realization as palatal [ɲ] when followed by the palatal stop [ɟ] (i.e., Old Nubian ⳝ). [^170]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §7.2.3.1. Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ is here written with a final ⳡ rather than ⲛ, thus mirroring its realization as palatal [ɲ] when followed by the palatal stop [ɟ] (i.e., Old Nubian ⳝ).
{{< gloss "(144)" >}} {{< gloss "(144)" >}}
{r} **Old Nubian** {r} **Old Nubian**
{r} ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲕ̄ⲕⲁ ⲉ̄ⲅⲓⲇⲣⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲡⲗ̄ⲗⲓ̈ⲅⲣⲁ̄ ⲇⲉⳡⳝⲉⲥⲟ {r} ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲕ̄ⲕⲁ ⲉ̄ⲅⲓⲇⲣⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲡⲗ̄ⲗⲓ̈ⲅⲣⲁ̄ ⲇⲉⳡⳝⲉⲥⲟ
{g} *mustērou*,mystery|*eik=ka*,[2sg=acc]({sc})|*eigid-r-ou=ka*,ask-[prs-1/2pl=acc]({sc})|*ou=ka*,[1pl.excl=acc]({sc})|*pill-igr-a*,shine-[caus-cnv]({sc})|*deñ-j-e-so*,[appl>1-plact-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm]({sc})| {g} *mustērou*,mystery|*eik=ka*,[2sg=acc]({sc})|*egid-r-ou=ka*,ask-[prs-1/2pl=acc]({sc})|*ou=ka*,[1pl.excl=acc]({sc})|*pill-igr-a*,shine-[caus-cnv]({sc})|*deñ-j-e-so*,[appl>1-plact-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm]({sc})|
{r} “reveal to us the mystery which we ask you” (St 5.3–7) {r} “reveal to us the mystery which we ask you” (St 5.3–7)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
@ -1125,7 +1128,7 @@ Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin, which employ the converb marker *‑a,* the conver
Studies of the modern Nile Nubian languages mostly represent the periphrastic applicative constructions as a single word. This may be due to the realization of these biverbal forms as a single prosodic phrase. However, at least in Andaandi, the question clitic *te* can be inserted between the dependent verb and the finite donative verb, thus providing clear evidence of the bipartite character of the applicative constructions.[^176] Studies of the modern Nile Nubian languages mostly represent the periphrastic applicative constructions as a single word. This may be due to the realization of these biverbal forms as a single prosodic phrase. However, at least in Andaandi, the question clitic *te* can be inserted between the dependent verb and the finite donative verb, thus providing clear evidence of the bipartite character of the applicative constructions.[^176]
[^176]: EExample provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c. The [3sg]({sc}) pronominal direct object is unexpressed. [^176]: Example provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c. The [3sg]({sc}) pronominal direct object is unexpressed.
{{< gloss "(148)" >}} {{< gloss "(148)" >}}
{r} **Andaandi** {r} **Andaandi**
@ -1183,7 +1186,7 @@ Summarizing [3](#3), we recognize that the reflexes of the donative verbs *\*tir
# Verbal Number {#4} # Verbal Number {#4}
Verbal number is a grammatical category which “can reflect the number of times an action is done or the number of participants in the action.”[^178] That is, it can be sensitive to event number conveying aspectual notions such as intense, repetitive, distributed, or even single actions. It can also interact with the number of intransitive subjects or transitive objects. As verbal number is insensitive to transitive agents, however, this pattern of grammatical relations is a realization of the ergative alignment system. Verbal number is a grammatical category which “can reflect the number of times an action is done or the number of participants in the action.”[^178] That is, it can be sensitive to event number conveying aspectual notions such as intense, repetitive, distributed, or even single actions. It can also interact with the number of intransitive subjects or transitive objects. As verbal number is insensitive to transitive agents, however, this pattern of grammatical relations is a realization of an ergative alignment system.
[^178]: Veselinova, “Verbal Number and Suppletion.” [^178]: Veselinova, “Verbal Number and Suppletion.”
@ -1218,7 +1221,7 @@ Browne points out that Old Nubian ‑ⳝ “refers to a plural object (either di
{r} “of those who are dead” (SC 8.12–13) {r} “of those who are dead” (SC 8.12–13)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
While Lepsius refers to the -(i)j-extension in Nobiin as “verbum plurale,”[^181] Werner uses the term “Pluralobjekt-Erweiterung” (plural object extension).[^182] This latter designation is, however, not quite adequate, because *‑(i)j* is not confined to interacting with plural objects; it can also be triggered by an intransitive plural subject and by event plurality.[^183] While Lepsius refers to the *-(i)j*-extension in Nobiin as “verbum plurale,”[^181] Werner uses the term “Pluralobjekt-Erweiterung” (plural object extension).[^182] This latter designation is, however, not quite adequate, because *‑(i)j* is not confined to interacting with plural objects; it can also be triggered by an intransitive plural subject and by event plurality.[^183]
[^181]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 127. [^181]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 127.
[^182]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 173. [^182]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 173.
@ -1295,10 +1298,10 @@ The Dilling reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is *‑j.* Kauczor’s examples suggest that i
The Tagle reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is realized as the voiced palatal stop [ɟ] or after /l/ as the voiceless palatal stop [c]. It expresses repetitive or multiple events. The examples are provided in the 2nd singular imperative form. The Tagle reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is realized as the voiced palatal stop [ɟ] or after /l/ as the voiceless palatal stop [c]. It expresses repetitive or multiple events. The examples are provided in the 2nd singular imperative form.
| | Tagle | | | | Tagle | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (169) | áŋ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ / áŋ-c-ɪ́ [áɲcɪ́] | “catch, seize!” [oj sg/rpt]({sc}) | | (169) | áŋ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ | “catch, seize!” [oj sg]({sc}) | áŋ-c-ɪ́ [áɲcɪ́] | id. [rpt]({sc}) |
| (170) | kɪ̀ŋ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ / kɪ́ŋ-c-ɪ́ [kɪ́ɲcɪ́] | “repair!” [oj sg/rpt]({sc}) | | (170) | kɪ̀ŋ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ | “repair!” [oj sg]({sc}) | kɪ́ŋ-c-ɪ́ [kɪ́ɲcɪ́] | id. [rpt]({sc}) |
{{< gloss "(171)" >}} {{< gloss "(171)" >}}
{g} *kòn-ú-nù=gì*,bird-[sg-dim.sg=acc]({sc})|*kákár=kɔ̀*,stone=[ins]({sc})|*jɪ̀l-ɪ̀*,throw-[imp.2sg]({sc})| {g} *kòn-ú-nù=gì*,bird-[sg-dim.sg=acc]({sc})|*kákár=kɔ̀*,stone=[ins]({sc})|*jɪ̀l-ɪ̀*,throw-[imp.2sg]({sc})|
@ -1310,13 +1313,13 @@ The Tagle reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is realized as the voiced palatal stop [ɟ] or a
{r} “continue to throw stones at the bird!” {r} “continue to throw stones at the bird!”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
In Karko, the *\*‑(i)j*-extension is realized as voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] after a vowel, and as *Vɟ* after a consonant (except for /n/ and /l/). Following these consonants, *\*‑(i)j* is realized as voiceless alveopalatal fricative [ɕ]. In this case, [ɕ] is difficult to identify as a suffix because the preceding /l/ and /n/ are deleted. The following (unmarked) imperative forms refer to a singular or plural object. In Karko, the *\*‑(i)j*-extension is realized as voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] after a vowel, and as [Vɟ] after a consonant (except for /n/ and /l/). Following these consonants, *\*‑(i)j* is realized as voiceless alveopalatal fricative [ɕ]. In this case, [ɕ] is difficult to identify as a suffix because the preceding /l/ and /n/ are deleted. The following (unmarked) imperative forms refer to a singular or plural object.
| | Karko | | | | | | Karko | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (173) | ɕàn | “buy/sell!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ɕàɕ | “buy/sell!” [oj pl]({sc}) | | (173) | ɕàn | “buy/sell!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ɕàɕ | id. [oj pl]({sc}) |
| (174) | kìl | “jump over!” [oj sg]({sc}) | kìɕ | “jump over!” [oj pl]({sc}) | | (174) | kìl | “jump over!” [oj sg]({sc}) | kìɕ | id. [oj pl]({sc}) |
| (175) | t̪ōl-ór | “swallow!” [oj sg]({sc})[^190] | t̪òɕ | “swallow!” [oj pl]({sc}) | | (175) | t̪ōl-ór | “swallow!” [oj sg]({sc})[^190] | t̪òɕ | id. [oj pl]({sc}) |
[^190]: The singular stem *tōl-ór* is extended by the plural stem marker *-Vr* (see [6.3](#63)). [^190]: The singular stem *tōl-ór* is extended by the plural stem marker *-Vr* (see [6.3](#63)).
@ -1326,7 +1329,7 @@ In Karko, the *\*‑(i)j*-extension is realized as voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] a
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(177)" >}} {{< gloss "(177)" >}}
{g} kwǎr,pebble.[pl.acc]({sc})|t̪òɕ,swallow.[plact]({sc})| {g} *kwǎr*,pebble.[pl.acc]({sc})|*t̪òɕ*,swallow.[plact]({sc})|
{r} “swallow the pebbles!” {r} “swallow the pebbles!”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
@ -1443,20 +1446,20 @@ The *‑k*-extension in the Nile Nubian languages is assumed to be cognate to *
| | Dilling[^201] | | | | | | Dilling[^201] | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (193) | ir | “bear child” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ir-k | “id.” [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | (193) | ir | “bear child” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ir-k | id. [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) |
| | be | “get lost” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | be-k | “id.” [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) | | | be | “get lost” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | be-k | id. [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) |
[^201]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 128. [^201]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 128.
| | Tagle | | | | | | Tagle | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (194) | ònd̪ | “sip, absorb” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ónd̪-ík | “id.” [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) | | (194) | ònd̪ | “sip, absorb” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ónd̪-ík | id. [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) |
| | d̪ád̪d̪ | “cross, pass” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | d̪ád̪d̪-ík | “id.” [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) | | | d̪ád̪d̪ | “cross, pass” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | d̪ád̪d̪-ík | id. [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) |
| | Karko | | | | | | Karko | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (195) | kúʃ-ɛ́ɛ́r | “hang up” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùj-ùk | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | | (195) | kúʃ-ɛ́ɛ́r | “hang up” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùj-ùk | id. [oj pl]({sc}) |
| | ʃíl-ɛ̀ɛ́r | “kindle” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ʃìl-ìk | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | | | ʃíl-ɛ̀ɛ́r | “kindle” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ʃìl-ìk | id. [oj pl]({sc}) |
As Midob is still comparatively poorly documented, there is presently no clear evidence of the *\*-(i)k*-extension. As Midob is still comparatively poorly documented, there is presently no clear evidence of the *\*-(i)k*-extension.
@ -1589,12 +1592,12 @@ The initial vowel of the Midob verb stem *ú-kk* is assumed to reflect the archa
Ama and Afitti verbs commonly exhibit two bases which used to be referred to as “definite” and “indefinite” aspect stems.[^214] In recent studies by Rilly and Norton, the definite and indefinite are recognized as perfective and imperfective aspect stems, respectively.[^215] Ama and Afitti verbs commonly exhibit two bases which used to be referred to as “definite” and “indefinite” aspect stems.[^214] In recent studies by Rilly and Norton, the definite and indefinite are recognized as perfective and imperfective aspect stems, respectively.[^215]
[^214]: E.g., Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: 177f. and Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* p. 249. [^214]: E.g., Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 177f. and Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* p. 249.
[^215]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs.” [^215]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs.”
As in the Nubian languages, verbal derivational extensions in Ama are usually suffixed to the verb. Therefore, a prefixed extension such as the causative *a-* is a remarkable deviation from the suffixing pattern.[^217] As in the Nubian languages, verbal derivational extensions in Ama are usually suffixed to the verb. Therefore, a prefixed extension such as the causative *a-* is a remarkable deviation from the suffixing pattern.[^217]
[^217]: Apart from Stevenson and Tucker & Bryan, the causative prefix is also identified by Norton (“Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 84), as suggested by his morpheme glossing of the verb form *á-cɪ̀-ɛ̄n* as [caus]({sc})-happen-[du]({sc}). Examples from Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: 179. [^217]: Apart from Stevenson and Tucker & Bryan, the causative prefix is also identified by Norton (“Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 84), as suggested by his morpheme glossing of the verb form *á-cɪ̀-ɛ̄n* as [caus]({sc})-happen-[du]({sc}). Examples from Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 179.
| | Ama | | | | | | Ama | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
@ -1653,7 +1656,7 @@ Apart from *‑dakk ~ ‑takk,* Nobiin has another passive extension, *-daŋ,* w
[^224]: Reinisch, *Die Nuba-Sprache,* vol. 1, p. 64; Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 41. [^224]: Reinisch, *Die Nuba-Sprache,* vol. 1, p. 64; Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 41.
[^225]: Van Gerven Oei, p.c., September 2020. [^225]: Van Gerven Oei, p.c., September 2020.
[^226]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 100f. [^226]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* pp. 100f.
[^227]: Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 41, fn. 1. [^227]: Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 41, fn. 1.
| | Nobiin | | | | | | Nobiin | | | |
@ -1714,8 +1717,8 @@ As for the origin of the passive extensions various suggestions have been advanc
[^236]: Reinisch, *Die Nuba-Sprache,* vol. 1, p. 62. [^236]: Reinisch, *Die Nuba-Sprache,* vol. 1, p. 62.
* i) *katt* has developed from *k-att*, i.e. from the accusative marker plus the verb *att* “bring.” 1. *katt* has developed from *k-att*, i.e., from the accusative marker plus the verb *att* “bring.”
* ii) Andaandi *katt* “wrap, role (cigarette)” corresponds to Nobiin *kand* “wrap, dress” or *takk* with the same meaning. 2. Andaandi *katt* “wrap, role (cigarette)” corresponds to Nobiin *kand* “wrap, dress” or *takk* with the same meaning.
Reinisch’s second hypothesis is supported by Armbruster, who suggests, too, that the Andaandi passive suffix *-katt* originates from the verb *katt* “wrap.”[^237] Smagina, in turn, argues that Old Nubian *tak(k)* derives from the short form of the [3sg]({sc}) pronoun accusative, the long form being *takka.*[^238] Although the incorporation of a pronoun as part of a passivizing strategy is conceivable, as Van Gerven Oei points out,[^239] the presence of Nobiin *‑daŋ* as a variant of *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* does not support the assumption of the Old Nubian *-tak(k)* passive extension originating in the [3sg]({sc}) pronoun. Reinisch’s second hypothesis is supported by Armbruster, who suggests, too, that the Andaandi passive suffix *-katt* originates from the verb *katt* “wrap.”[^237] Smagina, in turn, argues that Old Nubian *tak(k)* derives from the short form of the [3sg]({sc}) pronoun accusative, the long form being *takka.*[^238] Although the incorporation of a pronoun as part of a passivizing strategy is conceivable, as Van Gerven Oei points out,[^239] the presence of Nobiin *‑daŋ* as a variant of *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* does not support the assumption of the Old Nubian *-tak(k)* passive extension originating in the [3sg]({sc}) pronoun.
@ -1850,7 +1853,7 @@ The *‑er*-extension also occurs in transitivity alternations. Compare the tran
{{< gloss "(239)" >}} {{< gloss "(239)" >}}
{g} *ōd̪-d̪ū*,goat-[sg]({sc})|*túy-é-n*,milk-[plr-3]({sc})| {g} *ōd̪-d̪ū*,goat-[sg]({sc})|*túy-é-n*,milk-[plr-3]({sc})|
{r} “the goat milks, i.e. produces milk” / “a goat milks, i.e. produces milk” {r} “the goat milks, i.e., produces milk” / “a goat milks, i.e., produces milk”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
Depending on the semantics of the verb and the semantic properties of its arguments, non-basic intransitivity constructions may even have a facilitative or passive reading.[^262] Depending on the semantics of the verb and the semantic properties of its arguments, non-basic intransitivity constructions may even have a facilitative or passive reading.[^262]
@ -1934,7 +1937,7 @@ In Karko the reciprocal extension has several allomorphs. Because of its undersp
The Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *‑in*-suffix looks strikingly similar to the Ama dual suffixes *‑ɪ̄n* and *‑ɛ̄n.* According to Norton’s internal reconstruction, Ama *‑ɪ̄n* is the older form, which originates from an old reciprocal suffix.[^269] He also points out that similar reciprocal extensions are attested in several East Sudanic languages. For these reasons, Kordofan Nubian *‑in* and Ama *‑ɪ̄n* can be considered cognates, providing another piece of evidence for the genetic relationship between these languages. So far, we do not know whether Afitti exhibits a comparable extension.[^270] The Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *‑in*-suffix looks strikingly similar to the Ama dual suffixes *‑ɪ̄n* and *‑ɛ̄n.* According to Norton’s internal reconstruction, Ama *‑ɪ̄n* is the older form, which originates from an old reciprocal suffix.[^269] He also points out that similar reciprocal extensions are attested in several East Sudanic languages. For these reasons, Kordofan Nubian *‑in* and Ama *‑ɪ̄n* can be considered cognates, providing another piece of evidence for the genetic relationship between these languages. So far, we do not know whether Afitti exhibits a comparable extension.[^270]
[^269]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix.” [^269]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix.”
[^270]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903. Being mainly concerned with dual possessive pronouns attested on Afitti kinship terms, de Voogt provides little insight into dual extensions on the verb. He claims that “Afitti has singular and plural subject marking in the verbal system, but an unmarked subject dual,” but he also admits that “the un-marked dual form has an uncertain status and meaning.” [^270]: De Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903. Being mainly concerned with dual possessive pronouns attested on Afitti kinship terms, De Voogt provides little insight into dual extensions on the verb. He claims that “Afitti has singular and plural subject marking in the verbal system, but an unmarked subject dual,” but he also admits that “the un-marked dual form has an uncertain status and meaning.”
## Further Plural Stem Extensions in the Kordofan Nubian Languages ## Further Plural Stem Extensions in the Kordofan Nubian Languages
@ -1942,18 +1945,18 @@ The Kordofan Nubian languages are rich in verbal number marking devices. In addi
| | Dilling | | | | | | Dilling | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (258) | bur | “get solid” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | bur-k-iɲ | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | | (258) | bur | “get solid” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | bur-k-iɲ | id. [sj pl]({sc}) |
| (259) | ʃoɲ | “get dry” [itr, sj sg ]({sc}) | ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | | (259) | ʃoɲ | “get dry” [itr, sj sg ]({sc}) | ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ | id. [sj pl]({sc}) |
| (260) | dil | “gather” [itr, sj pl]({sc}) | dil-t-ig | “id.” [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | (260) | dil | “gather” [itr, sj pl]({sc}) | dil-t-ig | id. [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) |
The stacking of plural stem extensions (i.e. the use of more than one suffix) is a common phenomenon in the Kordofan Nubian languages, as attested by Dilling (258) *bur-k-iɲ,* (259) *ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ,* and (260) *dil-t-ig,* as well as Tagle (261) *èl-t-ìg-ì,* (262) *ét̪-íŋ-k-í,* and (264) *dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́*. While (261) and (262) display [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms marked by a final *‑i,* (263) and (264) represent the [2sg/2pl]({sc}) imperative forms, marked by *‑i/ ‑e ~ ‑ɛ*. The stacking of plural stem extensions (i.e., the use of more than one suffix) is a common phenomenon in the Kordofan Nubian languages, as attested by Dilling (258) *bur-k-iɲ,* (259) *ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ,* and (260) *dil-t-ig,* as well as Tagle (261) *èl-t-ìg-ì,* (262) *ét̪-íŋ-k-í,* and (264) *dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́*. While (261) and (262) display [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms marked by a final *‑i,* (263) and (264) represent the [2sg/2pl]({sc}) imperative forms, marked by *‑i/ ‑e ~ ‑ɛ*.
| | Tagle | | | | | | Tagle | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (261) | él-ír-ì | “reach!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | èl-t-ìg-ì | “id.” [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) | | (261) | él-ír-ì | “reach!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | èl-t-ìg-ì | id. [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) |
| (262) | èt̪-ír-ì | “enter!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ét̪-íŋ-k-í | “id.” [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | (262) | èt̪-ír-ì | “enter!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ét̪-íŋ-k-í | id. [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) |
| (263) | nòm-èr-í | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nòm-k-é | “id.” [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | (263) | nòm-èr-í | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nòm-k-é | id. [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) |
| (264) | dí | “stand up, get up!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́ | “id.” [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | (264) | dí | “stand up, get up!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́ | id. [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) |
Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including *‑t-Vg, ‑kVn,* and *‑(V)k,* which are often combined with other formal devices such as tonal alternation and the reduplication of the verb root. The examples also illustrate that some verbs exhibit more than one plural stem, one stem interacting with participant number and the other with event number. The “fact that there is usually more than one formal strategy” for marking verbal number suggests “that this grammatical domain is subject to a high degree of communicative dynamism.”[^272] Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including *‑t-Vg, ‑kVn,* and *‑(V)k,* which are often combined with other formal devices such as tonal alternation and the reduplication of the verb root. The examples also illustrate that some verbs exhibit more than one plural stem, one stem interacting with participant number and the other with event number. The “fact that there is usually more than one formal strategy” for marking verbal number suggests “that this grammatical domain is subject to a high degree of communicative dynamism.”[^272]
@ -1961,9 +1964,9 @@ Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including *‑t-Vg, ‑kVn,* an
| | Karko | | | | | | | | Karko | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (265) | kūg-úr | “fix, connect!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùg-t-ùg | “id.” [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | | | (265) | kūg-úr | “fix, connect!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùg-t-ùg | id. [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | |
| (266) | dìí-r | “sink!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dìì-kìn | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | dīī-dìì-k | “id.” [rpt]({sc}) | | (266) | dìí-r | “sink!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dìì-kìn | id. [sj pl]({sc}) | dīī-dìì-k | id. [rpt]({sc}) |
| (267) | nwàá-r | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nwàà-kàn | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | dòɕ | “id.” [rpt]({sc}) | | (267) | nwàá-r | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nwàà-kàn | id. [sj pl]({sc}) | dòɕ | id. [rpt]({sc}) |
Like the *‑er*-extension ([6.3](#63)), the suffixes introduced in the present section can mark plural verb stems which are required in transitivity alternations. For this reason, they are glossed just like *‑er* by [plr]({sc}). Here are two pairs of Karko examples contrasting transitive and non-basic intransitive clauses. The latter are illustrated by the agent-preserving clause (269) and the patient-preserving clause (271). Like the *‑er*-extension ([6.3](#63)), the suffixes introduced in the present section can mark plural verb stems which are required in transitivity alternations. For this reason, they are glossed just like *‑er* by [plr]({sc}). Here are two pairs of Karko examples contrasting transitive and non-basic intransitive clauses. The latter are illustrated by the agent-preserving clause (269) and the patient-preserving clause (271).
@ -1996,7 +1999,7 @@ These productive extensions, Kordofan Nubian *‑ad̪* and Midob *‑át,* are a
The *‑ad̪*-extension is a portmanteau morpheme since it cumulatively expresses decreased valency and singular number. The corresponding plural morphemes, Dilling *‑e,* Tagle *‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ,* and Karko *‑Vn* are portmanteau morphemes too, as they cover both decreased valency and plural number. However, only Tagle *‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ* and Karko *‑Vn* are etymologically related to each other, while Dilling *‑e* appears to have a different origin.[^275] The *‑ad̪*-extension is a portmanteau morpheme since it cumulatively expresses decreased valency and singular number. The corresponding plural morphemes, Dilling *‑e,* Tagle *‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ,* and Karko *‑Vn* are portmanteau morphemes too, as they cover both decreased valency and plural number. However, only Tagle *‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ* and Karko *‑Vn* are etymologically related to each other, while Dilling *‑e* appears to have a different origin.[^275]
[^275]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* §462f. [^275]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* §§462f.
| | Dilling | | | | | | Dilling | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

64
content/article/norton.md
View file

@ -7,14 +7,14 @@ keywords: ["Ama", "Northern East Sudanic", "comparative linguistics", "Nilo-Saha
# Preliminaries # Preliminaries
Ama is a North Eastern Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north-west of Dilling, near to where Kordofan Nubian languages are spoken in the north-western Nuba Mountains. “Ama” (*ámá* “people”) is the self-designated name of the language community identified by the ISO639-3 code [nyi] and replaces the name “Nyimang” in older sources,[^1] as “Ama” is the name used in local literature in the language created over the last three decades. Nyimang is an altered form of “Nyima,” one of the mountains in the Ama homeland, which is now used as the name of the branch of Eastern Sudanic consisting of Ama [nyi] and Afitti [aft]. I will assume that Nyima is one of a group of four extant northern branches of the Eastern Sudanic family, the others being Nubian, the Nara language, and Taman.[^2] Ama is a Northern East Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north-west of Dilling, near to where Kordofan Nubian languages are spoken in the north-western Nuba Mountains. “Ama” (*ámá* “people”) is the self-designated name of the language community identified by the ISO639-3 code [nyi] and replaces the name “Nyimang” in older sources,[^1] as “Ama” is the name used in local literature in the language created over the last three decades. Nyimang is an altered form of “Nyima,” one of the mountains in the Ama homeland, which is now used as the name of the branch of Eastern Sudanic consisting of Ama [nyi] and Afitti [aft]. I will assume that Nyima is one of a group of four extant northern branches of the Eastern Sudanic family, the others being Nubian, the Nara language, and Taman.[^2]
[^1]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language* and “A survey of the phonetics and grammatical structure of the Nuba Mountain languages with particular reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ,” 40: p. 107. [^1]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language* and “A survey of the phonetics and grammatical structure of the Nuba Mountain languages with particular reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ,” 40: p. 107.
[^2]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* §4. [^2]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* §4.
Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified with leading Ama writers who oversee literacy in the language. For vowels, I distinguish five –ATR brassy vowels *ɪɛaɔʊ* and five +ATR breathy vowels *ieəou,* as represented fluently by Ama writers using five vowel letters {aeiou} and a saltillo {ꞌ} in breathy words. For tone, Ama’s nearest relative Afitti has been described as having two contrastive tone levels,[^3] but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in **Table 1**. Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified with leading Ama writers who oversee literacy in the language. For vowels, I distinguish five –ATR brassy vowels *ɪɛaɔʊ* and five +ATR breathy vowels *ieəou,* as represented fluently by Ama writers using five vowel letters {aeiou} and a saltillo {ꞌ} in breathy words. For tone, Ama’s nearest relative Afitti has been described as having two contrastive tone levels,[^3] but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in **Table 1**.
[^3]: de Voogt, “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology,” p. 47. [^3]: De Voogt, “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology,” p. 47.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|-----|------------------|----|-----------------------------------|-----|------------------| |-----|------------------|----|-----------------------------------|-----|------------------|
@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified
**~~Table 1: Level tone contrasts in Ama~~** **~~Table 1: Level tone contrasts in Ama~~**
A brief overview of Ama morphosyntax can be gained by locating it in the typology of Heine and Vossen,[^4] which assesses African languages on the presence of nominal classification, nominal case, and verbal derivation. In Ama, the role of nominal classification is limited due to a remarkable lack of nominal number affixes, although there is some differentiated grammatical behavior of rational nominals.[^5] However, case is extensive in Ama,[^6] as is typical of Nilo-Saharan verb-final languages,[^7] and likewise verbal derivation is extensive. A brief overview of Ama morphosyntax can be gained by locating it in the typology of Heine and Voßen,[^4] which assesses African languages on the presence of nominal classification, nominal case, and verbal derivation. In Ama, the role of nominal classification is limited due to a remarkable lack of nominal number affixes, although there is some differentiated grammatical behavior of rational nominals.[^5] However, case is extensive in Ama,[^6] as is typical of Nilo-Saharan verb-final languages,[^7] and likewise verbal derivation is extensive.
[^4]: Heine & Vossen, “Sprachtypologie,” cited in Kröger, “Typology Put to Practical Use,” p. 159. [^4]: Heine & Voßen, “Sprachtypologie,” cited in Kröger, “Typology Put to Practical Use,” p. 159.
[^5]: Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” pp. 75⁠–⁠76, 85; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 175⁠–1⁠76. [^5]: Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” pp. 75⁠–⁠76, 85; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 175⁠–1⁠76.
[^6]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §§2–⁠10. [^6]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §§2–⁠10.
[^7]: Dimmendaal, “Africa’s Verb-final Languages,” §9.2.3. [^7]: Dimmendaal, “Africa’s Verb-final Languages,” §9.2.3.
@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan langua
While Ama’s verb-final word order and use of coverbs are reminiscent of other Nilo-Saharan languages, relative clauses in Ama are of a globally rare type. Ama uses adjoined relative clauses at the end of the main clause, and these modify the last noun of the main clause.[^12] While Ama’s verb-final word order and use of coverbs are reminiscent of other Nilo-Saharan languages, relative clauses in Ama are of a globally rare type. Ama uses adjoined relative clauses at the end of the main clause, and these modify the last noun of the main clause.[^12]
[^12]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 178, shows cleft constructions with a similar core+adjoined structure, *wadang nɔ a nɛ [a meo tolun]* "This is the man [I saw yesterday].” [^12]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 178, shows cleft constructions with a similar core+adjoined structure, *wadang nɔ a nɛ* [*a meo tolun*] "This is the man [I saw yesterday].”
{{< gloss "(1)" >}} {{< gloss "(1)" >}}
{r} **Ama** {r} **Ama**
@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite
Although factative aspect is broader in meaning and more heavily used in text, the progressive stem is generally more basic in form, often consisting only of the bare root. However, neither the factative stem nor the progressive stem is predictable from the other in general because: (i) factative stems belong to various theme vowel classes, and some belong to a class taking a formative prefix *t̪V-*; (ii) in some verbs the two stems have two different suppletive roots; and (iii) the progressive stems of some verbs require certain obligatory incorporated affixes. When the root is extracted from any additional formatives, CVC is the most frequent verb root shape. Although factative aspect is broader in meaning and more heavily used in text, the progressive stem is generally more basic in form, often consisting only of the bare root. However, neither the factative stem nor the progressive stem is predictable from the other in general because: (i) factative stems belong to various theme vowel classes, and some belong to a class taking a formative prefix *t̪V-*; (ii) in some verbs the two stems have two different suppletive roots; and (iii) the progressive stems of some verbs require certain obligatory incorporated affixes. When the root is extracted from any additional formatives, CVC is the most frequent verb root shape.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | morphology other than [fact]({sc}) theme vowel | | [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss | morphology other than [fact]({sc}) theme vowel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ | search | | | sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ | search | |
| kɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | kɪ̄r | cut | | | kɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | kɪ̄r | cut | |
@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ The CVC shape of verb roots is characteristic across Eastern Sudanic languages.
[^18]: Stirtz, *A Grammar of Gaahmg,* p. 40. [^18]: Stirtz, *A Grammar of Gaahmg,* p. 40.
[^19]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* annex. [^19]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* annex.
| gloss | Nubian | Nara | Taman | Nyima | Proto-NES | | Gloss | Nubian | Nara | Taman | Nyima | Proto-NES |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| be | \*-a(n)/\*-a-ɡV | ne-/ge- (pl.) | \*an-/\*aɡ- | \*nV | \*(a)n/\*(a)ɡ (pl.) | | be | \*-a(n)/\*-a-ɡV | ne-/ge- (pl.) | \*an-/\*aɡ- | \*nV | \*(a)n/\*(a)ɡ (pl.) |
| burn | \*urr | kál, war | \*wer | \*wul "boil" | \*wul [\*wel?] | | burn | \*urr | kál, war | \*wer | \*wul "boil" | \*wul [\*wel?] |
@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ The CVC shape of verb roots is characteristic across Eastern Sudanic languages.
An alternation between *t̪-* and *k-* cuts into the characteristic CVC shape in one class of Ama verbs as a marker of aspect along with the theme vowel. An alternation between *t̪-* and *k-* cuts into the characteristic CVC shape in one class of Ama verbs as a marker of aspect along with the theme vowel.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | | [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| t̪-ùɡ-è | k-ūɡ | build | | t̪-ùɡ-è | k-ūɡ | build |
| t̪-īw-ò | k-íw | dig | | t̪-īw-ò | k-íw | dig |
@ -196,11 +196,11 @@ An alternation between *t̪-* and *k-* cuts into the characteristic CVC shape in
**~~Table 7. T/K marking on Ama verbs~~** **~~Table 7. T/K marking on Ama verbs~~**
A longer list of examples of this alternation shown in **Table 8** was documented by Stevenson, Rottland, and Jakobi, albeit with a different standard of transcription; they also detected the alternation in Afitti (*tosù/kosìl* “suckle,” *tòsù/kosìl* “light fire”).[^20] A longer list of examples of this alternation shown in **Table 8** was documented by Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, albeit with a different standard of transcription; they also detected the alternation in Afitti (*tosù/kosìl* “suckle”; *tòsù/kosìl* “light fire”).[^20]
[^20]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 16. By convention, *t* is dental and mid tone is left unmarked in their data. Pertinent to the present alternation, I question the phonemic status of the *w* in *t/kw* alternations before rounded vowels. [^20]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 16. By convention, *t* is dental and mid tone is left unmarked in their data. Pertinent to the present alternation, I question the phonemic status of the *w* in *t/kw* alternations before rounded vowels.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | | [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| tuɡɛ̀ | kwò | build | | tuɡɛ̀ | kwò | build |
| tàiɔ̀ | kaì | chop | | tàiɔ̀ | kaì | chop |
@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ Both steps in this proposed chain are indeed plausible cross-linguistically. As
[^23]: Frajzyngier, “The Plural in Chadic"; Wolff, “Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.” [^23]: Frajzyngier, “The Plural in Chadic"; Wolff, “Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.”
As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect is supported by semantic affinity between pluractional and progressive. Progressive aspect often entails that a process that is iterated ("is coughing," "is milking") over the interval concerned.[^24] In Leggbo,[^25] a Niger-Congo language, the progressive form can have a pluractional reading in some verbs, and conversely, verbs that fail to form the regular progressive *C# → CC-i* because they already end in *CCi* can use the pluractional suffix *-azi* instead to express progressive aspect. In Spanish,[^26] a Romance language, there is a periphrastic paradigm between progressive (*estar* “be” + gerund), frequentative pluractional (*andar* “walk” + gerund), and incremental pluractional (*ir* “go” + gerund). The two Spanish pluractionals have been called “pseudo-progressives,” but conversely one could think of progressive aspect as pseudo-pluractional. What is somewhat surprising in Ama is that progressive stems, being morphologically more basic (see **Table 5**), lack any devoted progressive affixes that would have formerly served as pluractional markers.[^27] However, some progressive marking is found in irregular alternations that reveal former pluractional stems. As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect is supported by semantic affinity between pluractional and progressive. Progressive aspect often entails that a process that is iterated ("is coughing,” "is milking") over the interval concerned.[^24] In Leggbo,[^25] a Niger-Congo language, the progressive form can have a pluractional reading in some verbs, and conversely, verbs that fail to form the regular progressive *C# → CC-i* because they already end in *CCi* can use the pluractional suffix *-azi* instead to express progressive aspect. In Spanish,[^26] a Romance language, there is a periphrastic paradigm between progressive (*estar* “be” + gerund), frequentative pluractional (*andar* “walk” + gerund), and incremental pluractional (*ir* “go” + gerund). The two Spanish pluractionals have been called “pseudo-progressives,” but conversely one could think of progressive aspect as pseudo-pluractional. What is somewhat surprising in Ama is that progressive stems, being morphologically more basic (see **Table 5**), lack any devoted progressive affixes that would have formerly served as pluractional markers.[^27] However, some progressive marking is found in irregular alternations that reveal former pluractional stems.
[^24]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, *A Grammar of Lumun, Vol. 2,* §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains. [^24]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, *A Grammar of Lumun, Vol. 2,* §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains.
[^25]: Hyman & Udoh, “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.” [^25]: Hyman & Udoh, “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.”
@ -305,14 +305,14 @@ Research over the past century has also been gradually clarifying the complex mo
Some verbal affixes are selected depending on factative or progressive aspect in Ama, just as verb stems are. For example, different suffixes for past tense or for directional movement are selected in the different aspects: Some verbal affixes are selected depending on factative or progressive aspect in Ama, just as verb stems are. For example, different suffixes for past tense or for directional movement are selected in the different aspects:
| | stem | [pst]({sc}) | | | Stem | [pst]({sc}) |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | t̪àl | t̪àl-ʊ̀n | | **[fact]({sc})** | t̪àl | t̪àl-ʊ̀n |
| **[prog]({sc})** | tām | tām-áʊ́ | | **[prog]({sc})** | tām | tām-áʊ́ |
**~~Table 9a. Affix selection according to aspect: "eat"~~** **~~Table 9a. Affix selection according to aspect: "eat"~~**
| | stem | [dir]({sc}) | | | Stem | [dir]({sc}) |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | | **[fact]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ |
| **[prog]({sc})** | dɪ̄ɟ-ɪ̄ | dīɟ-ír | | **[prog]({sc})** | dɪ̄ɟ-ɪ̄ | dīɟ-ír |
@ -321,14 +321,14 @@ Some verbal affixes are selected depending on factative or progressive aspect in
The same is true of passive and ventive suffixes, but in factative aspect the suffixes replace the theme vowel, so that the affixes are the sole exponent of aspect in many verbs: The same is true of passive and ventive suffixes, but in factative aspect the suffixes replace the theme vowel, so that the affixes are the sole exponent of aspect in many verbs:
| | stem | [pass]({sc}) | | | Stem | [pass]({sc}) |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áɪ́ | | **[fact]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áɪ́ |
| **[prog]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-àɡ | | **[prog]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-àɡ |
**~~Table 10a. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: "paint"~~** **~~Table 10a. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: "paint"~~**
| | stem | [ven]({sc}) | | | Stem | [ven]({sc}) |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | ɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | ɪ̄r-ɪ́ɪ̄ɡ | | **[fact]({sc})** | ɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | ɪ̄r-ɪ́ɪ̄ɡ |
| **[prog]({sc})** | ɪ̄r | ɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪ɛ̄ɛ̀ɡ | | **[prog]({sc})** | ɪ̄r | ɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪ɛ̄ɛ̀ɡ |
@ -337,14 +337,14 @@ The same is true of passive and ventive suffixes, but in factative aspect the su
In passive and in past, affix order also varies according to aspect with respect to the dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*: In passive and in past, affix order also varies according to aspect with respect to the dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*:
| | stem | [du pass]({sc}) | | | Stem | [du pass]({sc}) |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áy-ɛ̄n | | **[fact]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áy-ɛ̄n |
| **[prog]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄n-àɡ | | **[prog]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄n-àɡ |
**~~Table 11a. Affix order variation according to aspect: "paint"~~** **~~Table 11a. Affix order variation according to aspect: "paint"~~**
| | stem | [du pst]({sc}) | | | Stem | [du pst]({sc}) |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | | **[fact]({sc})** | sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n |
| **[prog]({sc})** | sāŋ | sāŋ-áw-ɛ̄n | | **[prog]({sc})** | sāŋ | sāŋ-áw-ɛ̄n |
@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ The origin of this affix order variation is revealed by further evidence. Passiv
| | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **gloss** | throw | throw to [du]({sc}) | elicit [du]({sc}) | | **Gloss** | throw | throw to [du]({sc}) | elicit [du]({sc}) |
| **[fact]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ | kɪ́l-ɛ̄n-ɔ̀ | | **[fact]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ | kɪ́l-ɛ̄n-ɔ̀ |
| | throw-[th-dir]({sc}) | throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc}) | hear-[du-medcaus]({sc}) | | | throw-[th-dir]({sc}) | throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc}) | hear-[du-medcaus]({sc}) |
| **[fact imp]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄-ɪ̀ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | | **[fact imp]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄-ɪ̀ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ |
@ -379,34 +379,34 @@ Ama has extensions that fall within the family of pluractionals that associate p
### Distributive Pluractional ### Distributive Pluractional
Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of an event over time or over participants (*àɪ̀ bā fʊ̄rā mʊ̄l t̪àl-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̀* "I ate until I had eaten five rabbits," *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄* "The child saw each of the children").[^35] Called “plural” in earlier works, it is remarkable that this category was largely unaffected by the shift of pluractional → progressive analyzed in [3.3](#tk) above,[^36] indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix *-r* used only on verbs with the theme vowel *-a* (*wāɡ-ā* "keep," distributive *wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r*).[^37] Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix *-tər,*[^38] which corresponds to Ama *-ɪ́d̪* and *-r* combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel *-a,* but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix *-ɪ́d̪* also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,[^39] and a “plurality of action” suffix *-íd* in Midob.[^40] The distributive suffix *-ij* in Kunuz Nubian is also similar.[^41] Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of an event over time or over participants (*àɪ̀ bā fʊ̄rā mʊ̄l t̪àl-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̀* "I ate until I had eaten five rabbits,” *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄* "The child saw each of the children").[^35] Called “plural” in earlier works, it is remarkable that this category was largely unaffected by the shift of pluractional → progressive analyzed in [3.3](#tk) above,[^36] indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix *-r* used only on verbs with the theme vowel *-a* (*wāɡ-ā* "keep,” distributive *wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r*).[^37] Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix *-tər,*[^38] which corresponds to Ama *-ɪ́d̪* and *-r* combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel *-a,* but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix *-ɪ́d̪* also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,[^39] and a “plurality of action” suffix *-íd* in Midob.[^40] The distributive suffix *-ij* in Mattokki (Kunuz Nubian) is also similar.[^41]
[^35]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 77, 83. [^35]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 77, 83.
[^36]: I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ* (throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc})) "threw to"/"is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix *-ɪ́*. [^36]: I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ* (throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc})) "threw to"/"is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix *-ɪ́*.
[^37]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 81. [^37]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 81.
[^38]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903, which also shows a similar plural object suffix *-to*. [^38]: De Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903, which also shows a similar plural object suffix *-to*.
[^39]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187, where *ɨ* is used in the same way as contemporary *ɪ*. Tone was not recorded. [^39]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187, where *ɨ* is used in the same way as contemporary *ɪ*. Tone was not recorded.
[^40]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 52. [^40]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 52.
[^41]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 117. Tone was not recorded. [^41]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 117. Tone was not recorded.
Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural participant (distributivity implies plurality but is distinct from it),[^42] which distinguishes them from plural-object pluractionals found in many Nubian languages that mark, and are thus obligatory with, plural objects.[^43] Distributives are also characterized by non-occurrence with dual participants (to be non-trivial, distribution requires at least three targets).[^44] The Ama distributive has the first property of optionality in transitive (but not intransitive) verbs, and the second property of non-duality with respect to subjects (but not objects).[^45] This second property is shared by the Afitti suffix *-t(ə)r* which likewise does not occur with dual subjects.[^46] This is shown in Afitti field data below,[^47] where the suffix *-t(ə)r* contrasts in this respect with plural pronominal affixes 1pl *ko-*, 2pl *o-*, and 3pl *-i* which do occur with dual subjects. Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural participant (distributivity implies plurality but is distinct from it),[^42] which distinguishes them from plural-object pluractionals found in many Nubian languages that mark, and are thus obligatory with, plural objects.[^43] Distributives are also characterized by non-occurrence with dual participants (to be non-trivial, distribution requires at least three targets).[^44] The Ama distributive has the first property of optionality in transitive (but not intransitive) verbs, and the second property of non-duality with respect to subjects (but not objects).[^45] This second property is shared by the Afitti suffix *-t(ə)r* which likewise does not occur with dual subjects.[^46] This is shown in Afitti field data below,[^47] where the suffix *-t(ə)r* contrasts in this respect with plural pronominal affixes [1pl]({sc}) *ko-*, [2pl]({sc}) *o-*, and [3pl]({sc}) *-i* which do occur with dual subjects.
[^42]: Corbett, *Number,* p. 116. [^42]: Corbett, *Number,* p. 116.
[^43]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md) [^43]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md)
[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115–116. [^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115–116.
[^45]: Norton, “Number in Ama vVrbs,” pp. 78, 79, 91. [^45]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 78, 79, 91.
[^46]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903. [^46]: De Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903.
[^47]: I am grateful to Alex de Voogt for sharing this data in personal communication from his field research on Afitti. [^47]: I am grateful to Alex de Voogt for sharing this data in personal communication from his field research on Afitti.
| 1 | gloss | 2 | gloss | 3 | gloss | | 1 | Gloss | 2 | Gloss | 3 | Gloss |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you [sg]({sc}) milk | kaɲál | he/she milks | | ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you [sg]({sc}) milk | kaɲál | he/she milks |
| kó-ɡaɲal | we (du.) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you [du]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲál-i | they [du]({sc}) milk | | kó-ɡaɲal | we [du]({sc}) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you [du]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲál-i | they [du]({sc}) milk |
| kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | we (pl.) milk | ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | you [pl]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲá-tər-i | they [pl]({sc}) milk | | kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | we [pl]({sc}) milk | ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | you [pl]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲá-tər-i | they [pl]({sc}) milk |
**~~Table 13. Afitti pluractional *-t(ə)r* not used with dual subjects~~** **~~Table 13. Afitti pluractional *-t(ə)r* not used with dual subjects~~**
Beyond the Nyima branch, the Temein “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* shares the first property of optionality as it “is by no means always added with plural objects.”[^48] It actually marks a distributive effect of the verb on the object (*ŋɔŋɔt-ɨt̪-ɛ dʉk* "I break the stick into pieces"), as also found with the Kunuz Nubian distributive suffix *-ij* (*duɡuːɡ ɡull-ij-ossu* ‘She threw the money here and there’).[^49] Information on non-occurrence with dual subjects is not reported in these languages, but it appears that this is because non-duality is a feature of incremental-distributive marking as found in Nyima, and not distributive-effect marking as found in Temein and Kunuz which can even occur with a singular object, as in the Temein example. Beyond the Nyima branch, the Temein “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* shares the first property of optionality as it “is by no means always added with plural objects.”[^48] It actually marks a distributive effect of the verb on the object (*ŋɔŋɔt-ɨt̪-ɛ dʉk* "I break the stick into pieces"), as also found with the Mattokki distributive suffix *-ij* (*duɡuːɡ ɡull-ij-ossu* ‘She threw the money here and there’).[^49] Information on non-occurrence with dual subjects is not reported in these languages, but it appears that this is because non-duality is a feature of incremental-distributive marking as found in Nyima, and not distributive-effect marking as found in Temein and Mattokki which can even occur with a singular object, as in the Temein example.
[^48]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187. [^48]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187.
[^49]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 118. [^49]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 118.
@ -427,7 +427,7 @@ The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks
[^54]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 40. [^54]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 40.
| [sg]({sc}) | [du]({sc}) | [distr pl]({sc}) | gloss | | [sg]({sc}) | [du]({sc}) | [distr pl]({sc}) | Gloss |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| fá kɪ̄r-ār | à-fá kɪ̄r-ār-ɛ̄n | à-fá kɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪-ār | don’t be cutting! | | fá kɪ̄r-ār | à-fá kɪ̄r-ār-ɛ̄n | à-fá kɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪-ār | don’t be cutting! |
| fá sāŋ-ār | à-fá sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n | à-fá sāŋ-ɪ́d̪-ār | don’t be searching! | | fá sāŋ-ār | à-fá sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n | à-fá sāŋ-ɪ́d̪-ār | don’t be searching! |
@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ Another trilled suffix *-ir* marks motion in progress.[^55] It can be added to a
[^56]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” [^56]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”
[^57]: This verb appears in unpublished data collected by Abi Kingston. [^57]: This verb appears in unpublished data collected by Abi Kingston.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | | [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
| bwìɡ | buɡìr | overtake | | bwìɡ | buɡìr | overtake |
| nɪfɛ̀ɡ | nɪfìr | fall | | nɪfɛ̀ɡ | nɪfìr | fall |
@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ Another trilled suffix *-ir* marks motion in progress.[^55] It can be added to a
**~~Table 15. Progressive stems ending in a trill~~** **~~Table 15. Progressive stems ending in a trill~~**
The trill thus fuses with certain vowels that behave like theme vowels for creating extended progressive stems. As a progressive element, the trill most probably derives from the shift of pluractional → progressive, identifying it as the missing extension of the second Nyima pluractional. We then have an Ama distributive pluractional suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that resembles the Nubian distributive pluractional *\*-[i]ɟ,* and Ama “pseudo-pluractional” progressive suffixes of the shape *-Vr* that resemble the Nubian plural-object pluractional *\*-er*. The trill thus fuses with certain vowels that behave like theme vowels for creating extended progressive stems. As a progressive element, the trill most probably derives from the shift of pluractional → progressive, identifying it as the missing extension of the second Nyima pluractional. We then have an Ama distributive pluractional suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that resembles the Nubian distributive pluractional *\*-(i)ɟ,* and Ama “pseudo-pluractional” progressive suffixes of the shape *-Vr* that resemble the Nubian plural-object pluractional *\*-er*.
### Innovative Dual-Participant Pluractional ### Innovative Dual-Participant Pluractional
@ -460,11 +460,11 @@ A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ
[^58]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” §3. [^58]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” §3.
[^59]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 28. [^59]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 28.
[^60]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix," p. 121. [^60]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix,” p. 121.
[^61]: Ibid., p. 120. [^61]: Ibid., p. 120.
[^62]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 84, 87. [^62]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 84, 87.
# Conclusion: Ama as a Matured North Eastern Sudanic Language {#5} # Conclusion: Ama as a Matured Northern East Sudanic Language {#5}
Ama verbs show a number of connections to Nubian and other Eastern Sudanic languages in their clause-final syntax, CVC root shape, and certain affixes. However, these connections are more in form than meaning, as the semantics is highly innovative in such notable shifts as plural → pluractional → progressive and reciprocal → dual, and in the drive towards concretization that has moved the expression of both relative clauses and number out of noun phrases to after the verb. In addition, the movement of low-tone suffixes to the final suffix slot, while itself a formal development, has further advanced the morphologization of aspect, so that stem selection, affix selection, and affix order all vary with aspect in Ama verbs. Next to these considerable changes, Ama’s stable distributive pluractional stands out as indicative of a wider Eastern Sudanic verbal category. Ama verbs show a number of connections to Nubian and other Eastern Sudanic languages in their clause-final syntax, CVC root shape, and certain affixes. However, these connections are more in form than meaning, as the semantics is highly innovative in such notable shifts as plural → pluractional → progressive and reciprocal → dual, and in the drive towards concretization that has moved the expression of both relative clauses and number out of noun phrases to after the verb. In addition, the movement of low-tone suffixes to the final suffix slot, while itself a formal development, has further advanced the morphologization of aspect, so that stem selection, affix selection, and affix order all vary with aspect in Ama verbs. Next to these considerable changes, Ama’s stable distributive pluractional stands out as indicative of a wider Eastern Sudanic verbal category.

165
content/article/rilly.md
View file

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
--- ---
title: "Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic" title: "Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic"
authors: ["clauderilly.md"] authors: ["clauderilly.md"]
abstract: "Thanks to the use of linguistic comparison and analyses of new inscriptions, Meroitic, the extinct language of the kingdom of Meroe, Sudan, has become increasingly well known. The present article deals with the identification of personal markers and verbal number. It shows how Meroitic, like many other languages, used a former demonstrative, *qo*, as a 3rd person independent pronoun. An in-depth analysis of the royal chronicles of the kings and princes of Meroe, compared with their Napatan counterparts written in Egyptian, further yields the [1sg]({sc}) dependent pronoun *e-* (later variant *ye-)*, which can be compared with [1sg]({sc}) found in related languages. A stela of Candace Amanishakheto found in Naga is the starting point for identifying the [2sg]({sc}) and [2pl]({sc}) independent pronouns *are* and *deb*. These two morphemes are linked with the most recent reconstructions of Proto-Nubian pronouns and confirm the narrow genetic relation between Nubian and Meroitic. Finally, the reassessment of the so-called “verbal dative” *‑xe/‑bxe* shows that this morpheme is simply a former verbal number marker with integrated case endings. This makes it a rare instance of transcategorisation in the cross-linguistic typology of verbal number. " abstract: "Thanks to the use of linguistic comparison and analyses of new inscriptions, Meroitic, the extinct language of the kingdom of Meroe, Sudan, has become increasingly well known. The present article deals with the identification of personal markers and verbal number. It shows how Meroitic, like many other languages, used a former demonstrative, *qo*, as a 3rd person independent pronoun. An in-depth analysis of the royal chronicles of the kings and princes of Meroe, compared with their Napatan counterparts written in Egyptian, further yields the [1sg]({sc}) dependent pronoun *e-* (later variant *ye-)*, which can be compared with [1sg]({sc}) found in related languages. A stela of Candace Amanishakheto found in Naga is the starting point for identifying the [2sg]({sc}) and [2pl]({sc}) independent pronouns *are* and *deb*. These two morphemes are linked with the most recent reconstructions of Proto-Nubian pronouns and confirm the narrow genetic relation between Nubian and Meroitic. Finally, the reassessment of the so-called “verbal dative” *‑xe/‑bxe* shows that this morpheme is simply a former verbal number marker with integrated case endings. This makes it a rare instance of transcategorisation in the cross-linguistic typology of verbal number."
keywords: ["Meroitic", "Meroe", "Kush", "Napata", "pronouns", "Egyptian", "decipherment", "verbal morphology", "pronominal morphology", "person", "comparative linguistics", "Old Nubian", "Nobiin", "Andaandi", "Ama", "Nara", "Taman", "Mattokki", "Karko"] keywords: ["Meroitic", "Meroe", "Kush", "Napata", "pronouns", "Egyptian", "decipherment", "verbal morphology", "pronominal morphology", "person", "comparative linguistics", "Old Nubian", "Nobiin", "Andaandi", "Ama", "Nara", "Taman", "Mattokki", "Karko"]
--- ---
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Nubian and Nara are closest to Meroitic, yet unfortunately neither is close enou
[^x3]: Rilly, "The Wadi Howar Diaspora and Its Role in the Spread of East Sudanic Languages from the Fourth to the First Millenia BCE.” [^x3]: Rilly, "The Wadi Howar Diaspora and Its Role in the Spread of East Sudanic Languages from the Fourth to the First Millenia BCE.”
The present paper deals with personal markers that can be identified in Meroitic inscriptions. This topic was never investigated until now, mainly because the Meroitic morphology was – and mostly remains – a *terra incognita.* The texts that have been found so far rarely offer a situation of uttering[^1] in which the subject can be easily identified. For example, the royal chronicles include reports of military campaigns where the verb *ked* “cut in pieces, kill” frequently occurs. However, in most cases, the verbal form is simply *ked,* without any pronoun or affix that could indicate which person is the subject. The present paper deals with personal markers that can be identified in Meroitic inscriptions. This topic was not investigated until now, mainly because the Meroitic morphology was — and mostly remains — a *terra incognita.* The texts that have been found so far rarely offer a situation of uttering[^1] in which the subject can be easily identified. For example, the royal chronicles include reports of military campaigns where the verb *ked* “cut in pieces, kill” frequently occurs. However, in most cases, the verbal form is simply *ked,* without any pronoun or affix that could indicate which person is the subject.
[^1]: For the definitions of the key terms in the Theory of Enunciative Operations, see https://feglossary.sil.org/page/definitions-key-terms-theory-enunciative-operations?language=en. [^1]: For the definitions of the key terms in the Theory of Enunciative Operations, see https://feglossary.sil.org/page/definitions-key-terms-theory-enunciative-operations?language=en.
@ -36,11 +36,15 @@ In addition, when the situation of uttering is clear and verbal affixes are pres
# Preliminary Remarks about the Conventions of the Meroitic Writing System {#i} # Preliminary Remarks about the Conventions of the Meroitic Writing System {#i}
Morphological issues in Meroitic cannot be addressed without taking into account the conventions of the writing system, because this is the only way we have to reconstruct the actual pronunciation of the words. The traditional transliteration of the texts, which follows the rules established by Griffith in 1911, is convenient because it is a direct reflection of the Meroitic signs (the default vowel /a/ is not written), but it is not a faithful rendering of the pronunciation. For instance, the Meroitic transcription of Greek Καῖσαρ (Latin *Caesar*) is written *kisri* but was pronounced /kaisari/. The Meroitic script is an alphasyllabary, like Indic scripts or the Ethiopian abugida.[^3] There were actually two scripts, the cursive script and the hieroglyphic script, but they followed the same principles and differ only by the forms of the signs, like capital and lowercase letters in Latin script, with the difference that the two registers are never mixed in the same text. Morphological issues in Meroitic cannot be addressed without taking into account the conventions of the writing system, because this is the only way we have to reconstruct the actual pronunciation of the words. The traditional transliteration of the texts, which follows the rules established by Griffith in 1911, is convenient because it is a direct reflection of the Meroitic signs (the default vowel /a/ is not written), but it is not a faithful rendering of the pronunciation. For instance, the Meroitic transcription of Greek Καῖσαρ (Latin *Caesar*) is written *kisri* but was pronounced /kaisari/. The Meroitic script is an alphasyllabary (**Fig. 1**), like Indic scripts or the Ethiopian abugida.[^3] There were actually two scripts, the cursive script and the hieroglyphic script, but they followed the same principles and differ only by the forms of the signs, like capital and lowercase letters in Latin script, with the difference that the two registers are never mixed in the same text.
[^3]: This distinctive feature of the Meroitic writing-system was first evidenced in Hintze 1973. For an extensive study of the rules of Meroitic script, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 277–314. [^3]: This distinctive feature of the Meroitic writing-system was first evidenced in Hintze 1973. For an extensive study of the rules of Meroitic script, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 277–314.
The script includes nineteen syllabic signs. Fifteen of them have the value “consonant + /a/”. The default vowel /a/ can be modified by adding one of the three vocalic signs *e, i,* and *o.* Like in English, the sign e has three values: /e/, /ə/ (schwa), and zero. The zero value is used to write consonant clusters or final consonants, for instance *qore* "ruler,” pronounced /kʷur/. The sign *o* is used for /u/ and /o/. Four additional syllabic signs have a fixed vocalic value: three of them represent “consonant + *e*” (*ne, se, te,* with the three values of *e*), one represents “consonant + *o*” (*to*). For initial vowels, there is a single sign transliterated a, which represents /a/, /u/, and probably /o/ and /ə/. Initial /e/ and /i/ were written *e* and *i* until the first century CE. In later times, they were written *ye* and *yi* with a dummy *y,* which was not pronounced. Finally, the texts include a word-divider, made of two dots like our modern colon, which is used (more or less regularly) between words or more commonly between the different clauses of a sentence. ![The Meroitic alphasyllabary](../static/images/meroitic.jpg "The Meroitic alphasyllabary")
**~~Figure 1. The Meroitic alphasyllabary.~~**
The script includes nineteen syllabic signs. Fifteen of them have the value “consonant + /a/.” The default vowel /a/ can be modified by adding one of the three vocalic signs *e, i,* and *o.* Like in English, the sign e has three values: /e/, /ə/ (schwa), and zero. The zero value is used to write consonant clusters or final consonants, for instance *qore* "ruler,” pronounced /kʷur/. The sign *o* is used for /u/ and /o/. Four additional syllabic signs have a fixed vocalic value: three of them represent “consonant + *e*” (*ne, se, te,* with the three values of *e*), one represents “consonant + *o*” (*to*). For initial vowels, there is a single sign transliterated a, which represents /a/, /u/, and probably /o/ and /ə/. Initial /e/ and /i/ were written *e* and *i* until the first century CE. In later times, they were written *ye* and *yi* with a dummy *y,* which was not pronounced. Finally, the texts include a word-divider, made of two dots like our modern colon, which is used (more or less regularly) between words or more commonly between the different clauses of a sentence.
The sound values of the Meroitic signs are generally known,[^x4] but there remains a few unclear points. Until recently, it was supposed that the sign 𐦭, transliterated formerly *ḫ,* and *x* according to the revised conventions,[^4] had only the value [χ], a velar fricative like Egyptian *ḫ.* A second sign, which can replace *x* in several variant spellings, is *h,* formerly *ẖ*. I suggested that *h* was a labialized version of *x,* in IPA [χʷ], because it mainly occurs before or after labiovelar vowels [o] or [u]. These two values [χ] and [χʷ] are evidenced by the use of *x* and *h* in Meroitic transcriptions of Egyptian words. The same distribution can be observed between *k* and *q,* the latter being a labialized velar consonant [kʷ]. However, in the Old Nubian alphabet, the Meroitic sign 𐦭 *x* was borrowed, not for the velar fricative consonant [χ], for which the Coptic sign ϩ was used, but for the velar nasal consonant /ŋ/, written ⳟ. Furthermore, in several Egyptian transcriptions of Meroitic royal names that include *x* or *h,* the scribes used a digraph *nḫ.*[^5] My impression is therefore that the signs *x* and *h* had a double set of values: [χ] and [χʷ] in loanwords from Egyptian and [ŋ], and [ŋʷ] in native words. This assumption is supported by strong arguments but still needs to be checked word by word. The sound values of the Meroitic signs are generally known,[^x4] but there remains a few unclear points. Until recently, it was supposed that the sign 𐦭, transliterated formerly *ḫ,* and *x* according to the revised conventions,[^4] had only the value [χ], a velar fricative like Egyptian *ḫ.* A second sign, which can replace *x* in several variant spellings, is *h,* formerly *ẖ*. I suggested that *h* was a labialized version of *x,* in IPA [χʷ], because it mainly occurs before or after labiovelar vowels [o] or [u]. These two values [χ] and [χʷ] are evidenced by the use of *x* and *h* in Meroitic transcriptions of Egyptian words. The same distribution can be observed between *k* and *q,* the latter being a labialized velar consonant [kʷ]. However, in the Old Nubian alphabet, the Meroitic sign 𐦭 *x* was borrowed, not for the velar fricative consonant [χ], for which the Coptic sign ϩ was used, but for the velar nasal consonant /ŋ/, written ⳟ. Furthermore, in several Egyptian transcriptions of Meroitic royal names that include *x* or *h,* the scribes used a digraph *nḫ.*[^5] My impression is therefore that the signs *x* and *h* had a double set of values: [χ] and [χʷ] in loanwords from Egyptian and [ŋ], and [ŋʷ] in native words. This assumption is supported by strong arguments but still needs to be checked word by word.
@ -48,15 +52,15 @@ The sound values of the Meroitic signs are generally known,[^x4] but there remai
[^4]: See Rilly \& Francigny, “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011,” p. 67, no. 10. [^4]: See Rilly \& Francigny, “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011,” p. 67, no. 10.
[^5]: For further details, see Rilly, “Upon Hintze's Shoulders,” pp. 28–29. [^5]: For further details, see Rilly, “Upon Hintze's Shoulders,” pp. 28–29.
A last peculiarity, pertaining rather to phonetic changes than to spelling conventions, needs to be mentioned here because it will be found in some of the following quotations from Meroitic texts. From the first century CE onwards, the sequence /s/ + /l/ (written *se* + *l*), which was frequent in Meroitic due to the use of the article *-l* at the end of noun phrases, merged into /t/. For example, the sentence written *kdise-l-o* “she is the daughter” became *kdit-o*. This phonetic development is known as “Griffith’s law”.[^6] A last peculiarity, pertaining rather to phonetic changes than to spelling conventions, needs to be mentioned here because it will be found in some of the following quotations from Meroitic texts. From the first century CE onwards, the sequence /s/ + /l/ (written *se* + *l*), which was frequent in Meroitic due to the use of the article *-l* at the end of noun phrases, merged into /t/. For example, the sentence written *kdise-l-o* “she is the daughter” became *kdit-o*. This phonetic development is known as “Griffith’s law.”[^6]
[^6]: Formerly known as “Hestermann’s law”, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 415–420. [^6]: Formerly known as “Hestermann’s law,” see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 415–420.
# The Third Person Markers {#ii} # The Third Person Markers {#ii}
Among the possible markers of the third person, only pronouns are known so far, namely *qo/qe* and variants for singular and *qoleb* for plural. No verbal ending that could be connected with the third person, such as Latin *-t/-nt* or Egyptian *=f/=sn,* has been spotted in the texts. The case of the “verbal dative” will be later investigated, but this morpheme is probably to be classified as a clitic pronoun. Among the possible markers of the third person, only pronouns are known so far, namely *qo/qe* and variants for singular and *qoleb* for plural. No verbal ending that could be connected with the third person, such as Latin *-t/-nt* or Egyptian *=f/=sn,* has been spotted in the texts. The case of the “verbal dative” will be later investigated, but this morpheme is probably to be classified as a clitic pronoun.
In the paradigm of personal pronouns, the 3rd person has a special place. Whereas the 1st and 2nd persons refer to the protagonists of the uttering situation (see n. 6), the 3rd person refers to people and things that are outside this situation. According to the relevant categorization of Arab grammarians, the 3rd person is “the absentee.”[^7] From this perspective, 3rd person pronouns are close to demonstratives. This is particularly obvious when it comes to morphology. In many languages, these pronouns are derived from demonstratives. In Romance languages for example, they stem from the Latin distal demonstrative *ille* “that”, for instance French *il* “he”, Spanish *él,* Romanian *el.* Some languages even use the same word for the demonstrative and the 3rd person pronoun.[^8] In Latin, the proximal demonstrative *is, ea, id* “this” was used as a 3rd person pronoun. In Turkish, a language that displays a full range of typological similarities with Meroitic,[^9] the same demonstrative *o* is used as a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative pronoun and a 3rd person pronoun.[^y3] This seems also to be the case in Meroitic, which has apparently the same word, *qo/qe,* for “this” (adjective), “this” (pronoun), and “he”, “she”, “it.”[^ex2] In the paradigm of personal pronouns, the 3rd person has a special place. Whereas the 1st and 2nd persons refer to the protagonists of the uttering situation (see n. 6), the 3rd person refers to people and things that are outside this situation. According to the relevant categorization of Arab grammarians, the 3rd person is “the absentee.”[^7] From this perspective, 3rd person pronouns are close to demonstratives. This is particularly obvious when it comes to morphology. In many languages, these pronouns are derived from demonstratives. In Romance languages for example, they stem from the Latin distal demonstrative *ille* “that,” for instance French *il* “he,” Spanish *él,* Romanian *el.* Some languages even use the same word for the demonstrative and the 3rd person pronoun.[^8] In Latin, the proximal demonstrative *is, ea, id* “this” was used as a 3rd person pronoun. In Turkish, a language that displays a full range of typological similarities with Meroitic,[^9] the same demonstrative *o* is used as a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative pronoun and a 3rd person pronoun.[^y3] This seems also to be the case in Meroitic, which has apparently the same word, *qo/qe,* for “this” (adjective), “this” (pronoun), and “he,” “she,” “it.”[^ex2]
[^y3]: Creissels, *Syntaxe générale 1,* 2006: p. 91. [^y3]: Creissels, *Syntaxe générale 1,* 2006: p. 91.
[^7]: In Arabic *ghâ‘ib,* cf. Cotte, *Langage et linéarité,* p. 130. [^7]: In Arabic *ghâ‘ib,* cf. Cotte, *Langage et linéarité,* p. 130.
@ -100,7 +104,7 @@ The pronoun *qo* was among the first elements that Griffith singled out in the f
{r} “May this dog yield(?) three talents, it is Natarura’s.” (REM 1165, beside graffito of a greyhound) {r} “May this dog yield(?) three talents, it is Natarura’s.” (REM 1165, beside graffito of a greyhound)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
Another function of *qo,* which confirms the demonstrative status of this word, is adjectival. Like in English or German, the same word is used for the adjective and the pronoun. In (4), also drawn from a funerary text, the topic found in (3) is extended: *qo* “this one” becomes *kdi qo* “this woman”, “this lady.” This interpretation, which I first advanced with some reservations,[^x6] was since then confirmed: (5), (6), and (7) are captions of pictures, respectively the graffito of a dog hunting a hare in the Great Enclosure of Musawwarat, the drawing of a gazelle on a wooden board found in the temple of Amun in Qasr Ibrim and a pair of feet engraved in the temple of Isis in Philae. The deictic nature of *qo* is perfectly obvious here. Its use as a 3rd person pronoun in Meroitic is therefore an extension of his function, because the other way round, namely that a personal pronoun could become a demonstrative, is cross-linguistically highly improbable. Another function of *qo,* which confirms the demonstrative status of this word, is adjectival. Like in English or German, the same word is used for the adjective and the pronoun. In (4), also drawn from a funerary text, the topic found in (3) is extended: *qo* “this one” becomes *kdi qo* “this woman,” “this lady.” This interpretation, which I first advanced with some reservations,[^x6] was since then confirmed: (5), (6), and (7) are captions of pictures, respectively the graffito of a dog hunting a hare in the Great Enclosure of Musawwarat, the drawing of a gazelle on a wooden board found in the temple of Amun in Qasr Ibrim and a pair of feet engraved in the temple of Isis in Philae. The deictic nature of *qo* is perfectly obvious here. Its use as a 3rd person pronoun in Meroitic is therefore an extension of his function, because the other way round, namely that a personal pronoun could become a demonstrative, is cross-linguistically highly improbable.
[^x6]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 98. [^x6]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 98.
@ -116,9 +120,9 @@ Another function of *qo,* which confirms the demonstrative status of this word,
Examples (6) and (7) show that the demonstrative adjective *qo* is compatible with the use of the determiner (article), singular *-l(i),* plural *-leb,* unlike English or French, but like Greek[^15] or Hungarian. It is, however, absent in some instances, such as (5) above. Examples (6) and (7) show that the demonstrative adjective *qo* is compatible with the use of the determiner (article), singular *-l(i),* plural *-leb,* unlike English or French, but like Greek[^15] or Hungarian. It is, however, absent in some instances, such as (5) above.
[^15]: Ancient Greek οὖτος ὁ ἀνήρ “this man,” literally “this the man”. [^15]: Ancient Greek οὖτος ὁ ἀνήρ “this man,” literally “this the man.”
In these examples, the determiner is apparently attached, not to the demonstrative, but to the noun phrase as a whole, as is normal in Meroitic.[^x7] However, a plural form *qoleb*[^16] can be found independently as a pronoun object, but, from the instances found so far, it is difficult to decide if it is a demonstrative or a personal pronoun. This form is particularly attested in royal chronicles.[^ex8] In these examples, the determiner is apparently attached, not to the demonstrative, but to the noun phrase as a whole, as is normal in Meroitic.[^x7] However, a plural form *qoleb*[^16] can be found independently as a pronominal object, but, from the instances found so far, it is difficult to decide if it is a demonstrative or a personal pronoun. This form is particularly attested in royal chronicles.[^ex8]
[^x7]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 511. [^x7]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 511.
[^16]: From the textual material so far available, the adjunction of the plural determiner *-leb* seems to be the only way to build the plural of nouns. For an alternative plural *qebe-,* see [3.2](#ii2). [^16]: From the textual material so far available, the adjunction of the plural determiner *-leb* seems to be the only way to build the plural of nouns. For an alternative plural *qebe-,* see [3.2](#ii2).
@ -160,9 +164,9 @@ The possessive *qebe-se* includes *qebe-,* a plural form of *qo* that is more co
[^x10]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 389. [^x10]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 389.
* Determiner: singular *-l* → plural *-le****b*** * Determiner: singular *-l* → plural *-le****b***
* Pronoun: singular *-qo/-qe* → plural *qe****b****e-* * Pronoun: singular *qo-/qe-* → plural *qe****b****e-*
*Qebese* has several variants, *aqebese,* *aqobese* (see n. 32) *eqebese,* and especially *bese,* which is frequent. This last form, in all likelihood, is not an abbreviated variant but is based on a still earlier form of the 3rd person pronoun, *-b,* which will be considered below [3.3.6]{#ii36}. *Qebese* has several variants, *aqebese,* *aqobese* (see n. 32) *eqebese,* and especially *bese,* which is frequent. This last form, in all likelihood, is not an abbreviated variant but is based on a still earlier form of the 3rd person pronoun, *-b,* which will be considered below [3.3.6](#ii36).
## The “Verbal Dative” as Possible Enclitic Pronoun or Verbal Number Marker {#ii3} ## The “Verbal Dative” as Possible Enclitic Pronoun or Verbal Number Marker {#ii3}
@ -194,7 +198,7 @@ The funerary inscriptions from the Karanog and Shablul cemeteries were the first
{r} “May you cause them to eat plentiful bread!” {r} “May you cause them to eat plentiful bread!”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
Meroitic is an agglutinative language, but it has a strong propensity to assimilative processes that blur the boundaries between successive morphemes.[^22] However, Griffith managed to identify the element *-bx* or *-bxe* as a “plural ending in the funerary formulae”, which appeared each time several individuals were commemorated in the same epitaph.[^23] In his *Beiträge,* Hintze was the first to suggest a plausible segmentation of these verbal compounds.[^24] He showed that *-bxe* (which, meanwhile, had been termed “dative infix”) had a singular counterpart *-x* or *-xe*[^25] that was theoretically present in the verbal compound, but concealed by a nearly systematic assimilation to the following suffix.[^26] Only in the archaic versions of formulae A and B (15)–(16) was this singular “infix” visible. Meroitic is an agglutinative language, but it has a strong propensity to assimilative processes that blur the boundaries between successive morphemes.[^22] However, Griffith managed to identify the element *-bx* or *-bxe* as a “plural ending in the funerary formulae,” which appeared each time several individuals were commemorated in the same epitaph.[^23] In his *Beiträge,* Hintze was the first to suggest a plausible segmentation of these verbal compounds.[^24] He showed that *-bxe* (which, meanwhile, had been termed “dative infix”) had a singular counterpart *-x* or *-xe*[^25] that was theoretically present in the verbal compound, but concealed by a nearly systematic assimilation to the following suffix.[^26] Only in the archaic versions of formulae A and B (15)–(16) was this singular “infix” visible.
[^22]: See Comrie, *Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,* pp. 43–19 for an updated interpretation of this old classification of languages. [^22]: See Comrie, *Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,* pp. 43–19 for an updated interpretation of this old classification of languages.
[^23]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* p. 14 and n. 1, pp. 25–26, 45. [^23]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* p. 14 and n. 1, pp. 25–26, 45.
@ -250,9 +254,9 @@ In an early analysis of these sentences,[^x11] I interpreted this “dative infi
{r} “Lorato writes a letter to Kitso.” {r} “Lorato writes a letter to Kitso.”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
In (19b), the beneficiary is plural (*bana* “children”, sg. *ngwana*), whereas in (19c), *lokwalo* “letter” is singular. In both cases, the applicative suffix is *-el.* The Meroitic suffixes *-x* and *-bx,* by contrast, agree in number with the beneficiary. In (19b), the beneficiary is plural (*bana* “children,” [sg]({sc}) *ngwana*), whereas in (19c), *lokwalo* “letter” is singular. In both cases, the applicative suffix is *-el.* The Meroitic suffixes *-x* and *-bx,* by contrast, agree in number with the beneficiary.
In addition, this morpheme was first identified as a beneficiary marker from the instances found in the benedictions of the epitaphs, hence its name “dative infix.” However, in royal chronicles and biographical passages of several funerary texts – which have been little studied to date – the suffix obviously refers to a direct object, as can be seen in (20) drawn from the funerary stela of viceroy of Nubia Abratoye.[^x12] In addition, this morpheme was first identified as a beneficiary marker from the instances found in the benedictions of the epitaphs, hence its name “dative infix.” However, in royal chronicles and biographical passages of several funerary texts — which have been little studied to date — the suffix obviously refers to a direct object, as can be seen in (20) drawn from the funerary stela of viceroy of Nubia Abratoye.[^x12]
[^x12]: Carrier, "La stèle méroïtique d’Abratoye.” [^x12]: Carrier, "La stèle méroïtique d’Abratoye.”
@ -262,7 +266,7 @@ In addition, this morpheme was first identified as a beneficiary marker from the
{r} “I took control of 35 virgins and 25 donkeys.” (REM 1333/16) {r} “I took control of 35 virgins and 25 donkeys.” (REM 1333/16)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
For these two reasons, in a later analysis,[^13] I considered *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* to be object personal pronouns that had been incorporated into the verbal compound as clitics. A similar enclisis can be found, for instance, in the imperative forms of Romance languages,[^x14] especially in Spanish: *dámelo* “give it to me”, *presentémonos* “let us introduce ourselves.” For these two reasons, in a later analysis,[^13] I considered *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* to be object personal pronouns that had been incorporated into the verbal compound as clitics. A similar enclisis can be found, for instance, in the imperative forms of Romance languages,[^x14] especially in Spanish: *dámelo* “give it to me,” *presentémonos* “let us introduce ourselves.”
[^x13]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 395–398. [^x13]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 395–398.
[^x14]: Jacquesson, *Les personnes,* pp. 297–298. [^x14]: Jacquesson, *Les personnes,* pp. 297–298.
@ -273,7 +277,7 @@ This analysis, however, does not account for the location of these so-called cli
The unexpected location of *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* in the verbal complex can be compared with that of the verbal number marker in two groups of the NES linguistic family, Nyima and Nubian. In these languages, the plurality of the subject in intransitive constructions and of the object in transitive constructions (“ergative pattern”) is realized by the same verbal suffix which is added directly to the verbal stem, before the TAM suffixes. The clearest instances of this construction are found in the Nyima language Ama and involve an ergative-pattern verbal plural marker[^29] *-(ì)d̪ì* as shown in (21)–(22). The unexpected location of *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* in the verbal complex can be compared with that of the verbal number marker in two groups of the NES linguistic family, Nyima and Nubian. In these languages, the plurality of the subject in intransitive constructions and of the object in transitive constructions (“ergative pattern”) is realized by the same verbal suffix which is added directly to the verbal stem, before the TAM suffixes. The clearest instances of this construction are found in the Nyima language Ama and involve an ergative-pattern verbal plural marker[^29] *-(ì)d̪ì* as shown in (21)–(22).
[^29]: An in-depth analysis of this construction in Ama can be found in Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs.” This author prefers to speak of “distributive” rather than “plural” (ibid., p. 78). His stance is supported by a series of five examples, which can be nonetheless analysed as a particular case of plural construction. In her study of verbal plural in Nubian, Jakobi states that “verbal number – realized by distinct singular and plural verb stems – can have both aspectual and morphosyntactic functions. On the one hand these stems may encode habitual, progressive, iterative, repetitive, distributive, or even single events, on the other hand these stems may encode the participants affected by these events” (Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 117). [^29]: An in-depth analysis of this construction in Ama can be found in Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs.” This author prefers to speak of “distributive” rather than “plural” (ibid., p. 78). His stance is supported by a series of five examples, which can be nonetheless analysed as a particular case of plural construction. In her study of verbal plural in Nubian, Jakobi states that “verbal number — realized by distinct singular and plural verb stems — can have both aspectual and morphosyntactic functions. On the one hand these stems may encode habitual, progressive, iterative, repetitive, distributive, or even single events, on the other hand these stems may encode the participants affected by these events” (Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 117).
{{< gloss "(21a)" >}} {{< gloss "(21a)" >}}
{r} **Ama** {r} **Ama**
@ -299,8 +303,8 @@ The unexpected location of *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* in the verbal complex can be com
In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is found in Midob.[^y2] In Kordofan Nubian, a similar suffix *-c* is attested along with others suffixes, such as *-Vr,* which is much more frequent. Recent publications showed that the Nubian suffixes function according to the same ergative pattern as the Ama suffix.[^31] Example (23) illustrates the use of the suffix to mark subject plurality with intransitive verbs, whereas examples (24)–(25) show the suffix marking object plurality with transitive verbs.[^ex23] In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is found in Midob.[^y2] In Kordofan Nubian, a similar suffix *-c* is attested along with others suffixes, such as *-Vr,* which is much more frequent. Recent publications showed that the Nubian suffixes function according to the same ergative pattern as the Ama suffix.[^31] Example (23) illustrates the use of the suffix to mark subject plurality with intransitive verbs, whereas examples (24)–(25) show the suffix marking object plurality with transitive verbs.[^ex23]
[^y2]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 49. [^y2]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 49.
[^30]: *-V* stands here for “vowel”. See Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 117–122 for Old Nubian, Nobiin, and Mattokki–Andaandi. In the latter group, *-(i)j* is only a pluractional marker whereas the plural marker (only for objects) is *-ir.* For *-c* as a verbal number marker in Tagle, a Kordofan Nubian language, see Jakobi, Ibrahim \& Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” exx. 5–6, 19, 20. [^30]: *-V* stands here for “vowel.” See Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 117–122 for Old Nubian, Nobiin, and Mattokki–Andaandi. In the latter group, *-(i)j* is only a pluractional marker whereas the plural marker (only for objects) is *-ir.* For *-c* as a verbal number marker in Tagle, a Kordofan Nubian language, see Jakobi, Ibrahim \& Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” exx. 5–6, 19, 20.
[^31]: The suffix *-(i)j* is mentioned in Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1 who calls it "pluractional" and in Werner 1989: 173–175, who speaks of “plural object extension” but not of plural subject marking. Recent and more explicit studies are Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” Jakobi 2017, and Jakobi et al., forthcoming. [^31]: The suffix *-(i)j* is mentioned in Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1 who calls it "pluractional" and in Werner 1989: 173–175, who speaks of “plural object extension” but not of plural subject marking. Recent and more explicit studies are Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin”; Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko”; and Jakobi et al., forthcoming.
[^ex23]: Examples from Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” p. 65, ex. 9; p. 64, exx. 3, 4. [^ex23]: Examples from Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” p. 65, ex. 9; p. 64, exx. 3, 4.
{{< gloss "(23)" >}} {{< gloss "(23)" >}}
@ -319,9 +323,9 @@ In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is foun
{r} “I am milking the cows.” {r} “I am milking the cows.”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
It is noteworthy that, unlike in the Ama examples above, the plural marking operated by the suffix *-(i)j* is redundant, since plurality is already marked by the subject pronoun *ter* “they” in (23) and the plural nominal suffix *-guu* in (25). In Ama, apart from rare instances of replacive patterns such as *wīd̪ɛ́ŋ* “child”/*dŕīŋ* “children,” and a plural suffix *-gí/-ŋì* which can be attached to kinship terms, plurality in unmarked in nouns. This makes it necessary, either to mark it by determiners (“several,” “many”, etc.) or to encode it in the verb by a specific marker, as showed in (20b) and (21b) above. It is noteworthy that, unlike in the Ama examples above, the plural marking operated by the suffix *-(i)j* is redundant, since plurality is already marked by the subject pronoun *ter* “they” in (23) and the plural nominal suffix *-guu* in (25). In Ama, apart from rare instances of replacive patterns such as *wīd̪ɛ́ŋ* “child”/*dŕīŋ* “children,” and a plural suffix *-gí/-ŋì* which can be attached to kinship terms, plurality in unmarked in nouns. This makes it necessary, either to mark it by determiners (“several,” “many,” etc.) or to encode it in the verb by a specific marker, as showed in (20b) and (21b) above.
Considering that the nominal plural suffixes that can be found in the NES languages are so diverse that no protoform can be reconstructed, it is plausible that Proto-NES had no plural nominal markers, but only a few replacive patterns and collective nouns with singulatives forms marked by a suffix *\*-tV*.[^x15] It was therefore necessary to encode the plurals of the participants in the verbal compound. Proto-Nubian seems to have been in this regard close to its ancestor Proto-NES.[^x16] Later on, for unknown reasons – but areal influence probably played a major role in it – each Nubian group worked out its own plural markers for all the nouns. This novelty of course competed with the earlier plural marking by verbal suffixes. However, both of them survived to this day, but they often follow economy principles. Khalil notes that “the *j*-suffix appears sporadically in the intransitive clause” and that “In the transitive clause […], when the object noun phrase is modified by a numeral or a quantifier such as *mallee* [many] or *minkellee* [how many], the plural marker on the object noun phrase becomes optional and subsequently the suffixation of *-j* becomes optional, too.”[^x17] Considering that the nominal plural suffixes that can be found in the NES languages are so diverse that no protoform can be reconstructed, it is plausible that Proto-NES had no plural nominal markers, but only a few replacive patterns and collective nouns with singulatives forms marked by a suffix *\*-tV*.[^x15] It was therefore necessary to encode the plurals of the participants in the verbal compound. Proto-Nubian seems to have been in this regard close to its ancestor Proto-NES.[^x16] Later on, for unknown reasons — but areal influence probably played a major role in it — each Nubian group worked out its own plural markers for all the nouns. This novelty of course competed with the earlier plural marking by verbal suffixes. However, both of them survived to this day, but they often follow economy principles. Khalil notes that “the *j*-suffix appears sporadically in the intransitive clause” and that “In the transitive clause […], when the object noun phrase is modified by a numeral or a quantifier such as *mallee* [many] or *minkellee* [how many], the plural marker on the object noun phrase becomes optional and subsequently the suffixation of *-j* becomes optional, too.”[^x17]
[^x15]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 350. [^x15]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 350.
[^x16]: Ibid., p. 272. [^x16]: Ibid., p. 272.
@ -362,7 +366,7 @@ Examples (29) and (30) are prayers to Amun, said by a fictive enunciator, in fav
[^x18]: cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 90. [^x18]: cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 90.
[^x19]: Rilly, “The Meroitic Inscriptions of Temple Naga 200.” [^x19]: Rilly, “The Meroitic Inscriptions of Temple Naga 200.”
[^ex31]: Aritene and Makedeke/Makedoke, “the Great God,” are two of Amun-Re’s numerous hypostases. The name Aritene is obviously a nominal compound and is consequently followed by the article *-l,* though scribes frequently omitted it. This determiner is mandatory here because the name is a direct genitive (Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 520–523). The meaning of Aritene is uncertain. It might be a Meroitic transcription *Ar-i-tene* of Egyptian *Harakhty* (Ḥr-ꜣḫt.y) “Horus of the Horizon,” where the “horizon” is reinterpreted as the “west”: cf. Meroitic *tene-ke-l* “west,” Nobiin *tin-o,* Ama *t̪êŋ* and words for “evening” or “night” in NES languages (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 141). [^ex31]: Aritene and Makedeke/Makedoke, “the Great God,” are two of Amun-Re’s numerous hypostases. The name Aritene is obviously a nominal compound and is consequently followed by the article *-l,* though scribes frequently omitted it. This determiner is mandatory here because the name is a direct genitive (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 520–523). The meaning of Aritene is uncertain. It might be a Meroitic transcription *Ar-i-tene* of Egyptian *Harakhty* (Ḥr-ꜣḫt.y) “Horus of the Horizon,” where the “horizon” is reinterpreted as the “west”: cf. Meroitic *tene-ke-l* “west,” Nobiin *tin-o,* Ama *t̪êŋ* and words for “evening” or “night” in NES languages (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 141).
{{< gloss "(29)" >}} {{< gloss "(29)" >}}
{r} **Meroitic** {r} **Meroitic**
@ -380,7 +384,7 @@ Examples (29) and (30) are prayers to Amun, said by a fictive enunciator, in fav
{r} “O Amun (…), to Natakamani, the descendant of Amun, to Amanitore, the descendant of (the) Aritene, to Arakakhataror, the descendant of the Great God, may you give the north entirely!” {r} “O Amun (…), to Natakamani, the descendant of Amun, to Amanitore, the descendant of (the) Aritene, to Arakakhataror, the descendant of the Great God, may you give the north entirely!”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
In (29), the singular suffix *-x* is added to the stem *l-* “give”. It refers to a single beneficiary, king Amanakhareqerema. Admittedly, the object, namely *pwrite* “life, vital strength,” is also singular, so that evidence of the agreement with the beneficiary is to be sought in examples (30) and (31). In (30), the object is plural, *pwrite ntke* “life and strength,” since there is no dual in Meroitic. However, the suffix remains in the singular. In (31), the object is again singular, *hrl alose* "the north entirely,” but the beneficiary is now a plural, namely the three members of the royal family. In this case, the plural form *-bx* of the suffix is used,[^34] just as we have seen in Ama and Nobiin. In (29), the singular suffix *-x* is added to the stem *l-* “give.” It refers to a single beneficiary, king Amanakhareqerema. Admittedly, the object, namely *pwrite* “life, vital strength,” is also singular, so that evidence of the agreement with the beneficiary is to be sought in examples (30) and (31). In (30), the object is plural, *pwrite ntke* “life and strength,” since there is no dual in Meroitic. However, the suffix remains in the singular. In (31), the object is again singular, *hrl alose* "the north entirely,” but the beneficiary is now a plural, namely the three members of the royal family. In this case, the plural form *-bx* of the suffix is used,[^34] just as we have seen in Ama and Nobiin.
[^34]: Example (8) above, which is two centuries earlier than (29)–(31), is apparently a counterexample. Admittedly, the contextual elements are much clearer and the meaning of the verb is better established in examples (29)-(31) than in (8). However, it may be that the marking of the direct/indirect object is governed by the degree of animacy/definiteness, as it is in Old Nubian (Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1.3). According to Dimmendaal, "Tama,” p. 324, this hierarchy is the following: [^34]: Example (8) above, which is two centuries earlier than (29)–(31), is apparently a counterexample. Admittedly, the contextual elements are much clearer and the meaning of the verb is better established in examples (29)-(31) than in (8). However, it may be that the marking of the direct/indirect object is governed by the degree of animacy/definiteness, as it is in Old Nubian (Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1.3). According to Dimmendaal, "Tama,” p. 324, this hierarchy is the following:
@ -446,7 +450,7 @@ The Meroitic suffix *-bx(e)* is therefore located in the right place, but, contr
It may, however, be mentioned that in Nubian languages, few instances of the use of the same morpheme for the frequentative (plurality of events) and the verbal number (plurality of participants) are attested. Nobiin and Old Nubian are the only Nubian languages where *-(i)j* is attested as both a plural event and participant marker, as shown in (33).[^x20] Still, it is uncertain whether this was also the case in Proto-Nubian. In (34) from Karko, the plurality of participants is indicated by the vowel *ɛ̀* in the verbal stem *ʃɛ̀-* (the singular stem is *ʃù-*), whereas the plurality of events is marked independently by the suffix *-tɛ̀g.* It may happen that a verb exhibits three different stems in Karko: one for a singular participant, one for a plural participant, and one for plurality of action.[^x21] A conspicuous instance is the verb “call,” which is *òg-* with singular object, *ògór* for plural object, and *òʃór* for plural action, i.e., a distributive meaning “call one by one.” The suffix *-(V)ʃ* is a frequent number marker in Karko[^y4] and other Kordofan Nubian languages, and is doubtlessly a reflex of Proto-Nubian suffix *\*-(i)j*. Another verbal number marker, the most frequent, is *-Vr,* with a vowel that is subject to vowel harmony. It is obvious that *òʃór* is an assimilated compound derived from *\*og-ʃ-Vr.* The two verbal plural suffixes *-(V)ʃ* and *-Vr* are used successively in the same stem to express plurality of object and plurality of events respectively. A similar distribution of these two verbal extensions is paralleled in Andaandi, where *-(i)j* is used for frequentatives, whereas the suffix *-ir* is used to mark the plurality of participants (only objects in this language).[^38] The markers *-(i)j* and *-ir* are clearly the Mattokki–Andaandi cognates of Kordofan Nubian *-(V)j* and *-Vr,* so that their use as specialized verbal plural markers might go back to Proto-Nubian. It may, however, be mentioned that in Nubian languages, few instances of the use of the same morpheme for the frequentative (plurality of events) and the verbal number (plurality of participants) are attested. Nobiin and Old Nubian are the only Nubian languages where *-(i)j* is attested as both a plural event and participant marker, as shown in (33).[^x20] Still, it is uncertain whether this was also the case in Proto-Nubian. In (34) from Karko, the plurality of participants is indicated by the vowel *ɛ̀* in the verbal stem *ʃɛ̀-* (the singular stem is *ʃù-*), whereas the plurality of events is marked independently by the suffix *-tɛ̀g.* It may happen that a verb exhibits three different stems in Karko: one for a singular participant, one for a plural participant, and one for plurality of action.[^x21] A conspicuous instance is the verb “call,” which is *òg-* with singular object, *ògór* for plural object, and *òʃór* for plural action, i.e., a distributive meaning “call one by one.” The suffix *-(V)ʃ* is a frequent number marker in Karko[^y4] and other Kordofan Nubian languages, and is doubtlessly a reflex of Proto-Nubian suffix *\*-(i)j*. Another verbal number marker, the most frequent, is *-Vr,* with a vowel that is subject to vowel harmony. It is obvious that *òʃór* is an assimilated compound derived from *\*og-ʃ-Vr.* The two verbal plural suffixes *-(V)ʃ* and *-Vr* are used successively in the same stem to express plurality of object and plurality of events respectively. A similar distribution of these two verbal extensions is paralleled in Andaandi, where *-(i)j* is used for frequentatives, whereas the suffix *-ir* is used to mark the plurality of participants (only objects in this language).[^38] The markers *-(i)j* and *-ir* are clearly the Mattokki–Andaandi cognates of Kordofan Nubian *-(V)j* and *-Vr,* so that their use as specialized verbal plural markers might go back to Proto-Nubian.
[^38]: See Jakobi, Ibrahim & Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” §2, with further references, particularly Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2880f, 3031f. [^38]: See Jakobi, Ibrahim & Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” §2, with further references, particularly Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2880f, 3031f.
[^y4]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 128. [^y4]: Ibid., p. 128.
[^x20]: See also Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” p. 37. [^x20]: See also Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” p. 37.
[^x21]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 130–132. [^x21]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 130–132.
@ -496,9 +500,9 @@ It is nevertheless unclear whether the Old Nubian and Nobiin verbal plural marke
[^x28]: Ibid., p. 523, no. 190 [^x28]: Ibid., p. 523, no. 190
[^x280]: Ibid., p. 456, no. 72. [^x280]: Ibid., p. 456, no. 72.
Like *-(i)j* in Old Nubian and Nobiin, the verbal plural marker *-b* was once used for plurality of events or plurality of object. The name of the Napatan king Amani-nataki-lebte,[^42] who ruled during the second half of the 6th century BCE, does not make sense if the suffix *-b* marks the plurality of object. It would mean “Amun, give them strength,” with no clue as to who these multiple beneficiaries could be. Actually, the suffix marked the plurality of events and emphasised the repetition of the gift: “give again and again,” “give continuously,” or “keep giving”.[^43] Like *-(i)j* in Old Nubian and Nobiin, the verbal plural marker *-b* was once used for plurality of events or plurality of object. The name of the Napatan king Amani-nataki-lebte,[^42] who ruled during the second half of the 6th century BCE, does not make sense if the suffix *-b* marks the plurality of object. It would mean “Amun, give them strength,” with no clue as to who these multiple beneficiaries could be. Actually, the suffix marked the plurality of events and emphasised the repetition of the gift: “give again and again,” “give continuously,” or “keep giving.”[^43]
[^42]: For this ruler, see *FHN* II, pp.293–296. The name is known in Egyptian transcription only (first line of (38)), since the Meroitic script was invented only three centuries later. [^42]: For this ruler, see *FHN* II, pp. 293–296. The name is known in Egyptian transcription only (first line of (38)), since the Meroitic script was invented only three centuries later.
[^43]: In the inscriptions of the temple of Apedemak in Naga, the verbal form *lbxte* “give them” is attested in REM 0003, where the beneficiary is the sole queen and in REM 0004, where it is the king alone. In her publication of these texts, Karola Zibelius (*Die Löwentempel van Naq‘a in der Butana (Sudan). IV,* pp. 45–52) explains this plural form as an iterative. However, at this time (mid-1st c. CE), the verbal plural suffix *-bx* was already specialized to exclusively mark the object plurality. It never occurs in benedictions involving a single person, where only *lxte* is used at least since the 2nd c. BCE (REM 1044A, REM 1151). The plural marker in REM 0003 and 0004 refers to the three members of the royal family, who constitute an indissoluble trinity, even when the queen and the king are figured alone (cf. ex. 31 above). [^43]: In the inscriptions of the temple of Apedemak in Naga, the verbal form *lbxte* “give them” is attested in REM 0003, where the beneficiary is the sole queen and in REM 0004, where it is the king alone. In her publication of these texts, Karola Zibelius (*Die Löwentempel van Naq‘a in der Butana (Sudan). IV,* pp. 45–52) explains this plural form as an iterative. However, at this time (mid-1st c. CE), the verbal plural suffix *-bx* was already specialized to exclusively mark the object plurality. It never occurs in benedictions involving a single person, where only *lxte* is used at least since the 2nd c. BCE (REM 1044A, REM 1151). The plural marker in REM 0003 and 0004 refers to the three members of the royal family, who constitute an indissoluble trinity, even when the queen and the king are figured alone (cf. ex. 31 above).
@ -567,7 +571,7 @@ If the wording of the Meroitic inscriptions was identical to the Egyptian texts
## Person in Egyptian Royal Texts {#iii1} ## Person in Egyptian Royal Texts {#iii1}
The Egyptian royal chronicles, the so-called *Königsnovellen,*[^50] alternatively use the first person pronoun and the phrase *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to designate the king – the hero of the narrative. This is for instance the case in the famous poem of Kadesh, where passages in the first person and the third person freely intertwine to describe the battle that Ramesses II fought against the Hittites. In Kush, the earliest and the most sophisticated *Königsnovelle* is the Victory Stela of King Piankhy (*FHN* I: pp. 62–118), engraved around 720 BCE and erected in the dynastic temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal. Apart from the passages including the king’s speech, which are in the first person, the narrative uses *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to refer to Piankhy. The same usage is found in the stelae erected in the temple of Kawa by king Taharqo and, later, in the inscriptions of the early Napatan kings Anlamani and Aspelta.[^51] The Egyptian royal chronicles, the so-called *Königsnovellen,*[^50] alternatively use the first person pronoun and the phrase *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to designate the king — the hero of the narrative. This is for instance the case in the famous poem of Kadesh, where passages in the first person and the third person freely intertwine to describe the battle that Ramesses II fought against the Hittites. In Kush, the earliest and the most sophisticated *Königsnovelle* is the Victory Stela of King Piankhy (*FHN* I: pp. 62–118), engraved around 720 BCE and erected in the dynastic temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal. Apart from the passages including the king’s speech, which are in the first person, the narrative uses *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to refer to Piankhy. The same usage is found in the stelae erected in the temple of Kawa by king Taharqo and, later, in the inscriptions of the early Napatan kings Anlamani and Aspelta.[^51]
[^50]: See Loprieno, "The King's Novel" and Spalinger, “Königsnovelle and Performance.” For an annotated edition of the poem of Kadesh, see Kitchen, *Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II.* [^50]: See Loprieno, "The King's Novel" and Spalinger, “Königsnovelle and Performance.” For an annotated edition of the poem of Kadesh, see Kitchen, *Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II.*
[^51]: Taharqo’s stelae, Kawa IV: *ḥm=f* with a long speech of the king in the 1st person (*FHN* I: pp. 135–145), Kawa V: *ḥm=f,* with a long narrative told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 145–158), Kawa VI: *ḥm=f,* with a long speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 164–176), Kawa VII: *ḥm=f,* with a speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 176–181); Anlamani’s stela, Kawa VIII: *ḥm=f,* but the raid against the Blemmyes uses the 3rd person plural ("soldiers") because the king stayed in Napata (*FHN* I: pp. 216–228); Aspelta’s stelae from Jebel Barkal, Election stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 232–252), Banishment stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 252–258), Adoption stela (king hardly mentioned): *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 259–268), stela for the mortuary cult of Prince Khaliut: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 268–279). [^51]: Taharqo’s stelae, Kawa IV: *ḥm=f* with a long speech of the king in the 1st person (*FHN* I: pp. 135–145), Kawa V: *ḥm=f,* with a long narrative told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 145–158), Kawa VI: *ḥm=f,* with a long speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 164–176), Kawa VII: *ḥm=f,* with a speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 176–181); Anlamani’s stela, Kawa VIII: *ḥm=f,* but the raid against the Blemmyes uses the 3rd person plural ("soldiers") because the king stayed in Napata (*FHN* I: pp. 216–228); Aspelta’s stelae from Jebel Barkal, Election stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 232–252), Banishment stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 252–258), Adoption stela (king hardly mentioned): *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 259–268), stela for the mortuary cult of Prince Khaliut: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 268–279).
@ -576,7 +580,7 @@ In the mid-5th c. BCE, a dramatic shift occurred. The inscriptions of the late N
[^52]: Cf. *FHN* II: p. 487 (l. 46), p. 488 (l. 50), p. 489 (l. 52), p. 490 (l. 54, 56), p. 491 (l. 60), p. 492 (l. 64). [^52]: Cf. *FHN* II: p. 487 (l. 46), p. 488 (l. 50), p. 489 (l. 52), p. 490 (l. 54, 56), p. 491 (l. 60), p. 492 (l. 64).
In Harsiotef’s stela, after the titles and the eulogy, where the king is referred to in the third person, the text abruptly shifts to the first person, without any kind of transition (*FHN* II: 441, l. 4). In Nastasen’s stela, the main text similarly begins with the titles of the king and a long eulogy, after which the narrative is introduced by the clause *dd=f* “he says,” referring, of course, to the king. This addition, lacking in Harsiotef’s stela, makes clear that, from this point on, the narrator is the ruler.[^53] The following passage from Nastasen’s chronicle (ll. 54–56) illustrates this novel use of the first person in Napatan war reports.[^54] Conspicuously, the monarch is not acting in person, but through his warriors, hence the use of the factitive verb *dj* “make, cause to.” In Harsiotef’s stela, after the titles and the eulogy, where the king is referred to in the third person, the text abruptly shifts to the first person, without any kind of transition (*FHN* II: p. 441, l. 4). In Nastasen’s stela, the main text similarly begins with the titles of the king and a long eulogy, after which the narrative is introduced by the clause *dd=f* “he says,” referring, of course, to the king. This addition, lacking in Harsiotef’s stela, makes clear that, from this point on, the narrator is the ruler.[^53] The following passage from Nastasen’s chronicle (ll. 54–56) illustrates this novel use of the first person in Napatan war reports.[^54] Conspicuously, the monarch is not acting in person, but through his warriors, hence the use of the factitive verb *dj* “make, cause to.”
[^53]: *FHN* II: p. 475 (l. 4). This infringement of the Egyptian tradition puzzled the editor of the text, who appropriately translated “he says,” but erroneously corrected in n. 151: “For ‘I say’.” [^53]: *FHN* II: p. 475 (l. 4). This infringement of the Egyptian tradition puzzled the editor of the text, who appropriately translated “he says,” but erroneously corrected in n. 151: “For ‘I say’.”
@ -594,31 +598,31 @@ In Harsiotef’s stela, after the titles and the eulogy, where the king is refer
{r}I put in my possession a booty (of) 203,146 oxen and 33,050 head of livestock.” {r}I put in my possession a booty (of) 203,146 oxen and 33,050 head of livestock.”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
[^54]: Reading and translation by the author. See *FHN* II: 490 and Peust, *Das Napatanische,* pp. 42, 60, 64. [^54]: Reading and translation by the author. See *FHN* II: p. 490 and Peust, *Das Napatanische,* pp. 42, 60, 64.
The first preserved royal text in Meroitic, namely the great stela of king Taneyidamani from the temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal, was inscribed a century and a half later. In the meantime, the Egyptian-language donation stelae of king Aryamani, Kawa XIV and XV, are admittedly written in the first person, but the texts – at least what is left of them – are speeches to Amun and contain no narrative.[^55] On the other end of the Meroitic period, a century after the fall of Meroe, the wall inscription of the Nobadian ruler Silko in Kalabsha, though written in Greek, also is in the first person.[^56] It is therefore highly probable that the Meroitic royal chronicles fall in this long-lasting tradition and include events and war reports narrated by the ruler in the first person, like the late Napatan royal stelae and the post-Meroitic inscription of king Silko. The first preserved royal text in Meroitic, namely the great stela of king Taneyidamani from the temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal, was inscribed a century and a half later. In the meantime, the Egyptian-language donation stelae of king Aryamani, Kawa XIV and XV, are admittedly written in the first person, but the texts — at least what is left of them — are speeches to Amun and contain no narrative.[^55] On the other end of the Meroitic period, a century after the fall of Meroe, the wall inscription of the Nobadian ruler Silko in Kalabsha, though written in Greek, also is in the first person.[^56] It is therefore highly probable that the Meroitic royal chronicles fall in this long-lasting tradition and include events and war reports narrated by the ruler in the first person, like the late Napatan royal stelae and the post-Meroitic inscription of king Silko.
[^55]: See *FHN* II: pp. 522–532. The stelae, which are in very bad state of preservation, are dated to the late 4th or the early 3rd c. [^55]: See *FHN* II: pp. 522–532. The stelae, which are in very bad state of preservation, are dated to the late 4th or the early 3rd c.
[^56]: *FHN* III: pp. 1147–1153; Rilly, “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung,” pp. 385–388. [^56]: *FHN* III: pp. 1147–1153; Rilly, “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung,” pp. 385–388.
## The Verbal Affix *(y)e-* in Meroitic Royal Texts {#iii2} ## The Verbal Affix *(y)e-* in Meroitic Royal Texts {#iii2}
Although the major part of the Meroitic royal inscriptions remains untranslatable, the passages that enumerate the spoils of war are now fairly well understood.[^57] They include, on the one hand, verbs such as *ked* “kill,” *are* and *er* “take hold of,” *tk* “seize,” *kb* “seize, plunder,” sometimes followed by the pluractional marker *-k* (*er-k, tk-k*), and, on the other hand, nouns such as *abr* “man,” *kdi* “woman,” *ar* “boy,” *anese* “donkey,” *mreke* “horse,” and *d* “house,”[^58] all of them being parts of the booty and therefore, cited with figures or more summarily followed by *-se-l* “each.” Examples (20), (35), (36), (37), (42), and (43) above are instances of booty lists from royal inscriptions. Although the major part of the Meroitic royal inscriptions remains untranslatable, the passages that enumerate the spoils of war are now fairly well understood.[^57] They include, on the one hand, verbs such as *ked* “kill”; *are* and *er* “take hold of”; *tk* “seize”; and *kb* “seize, plunder,” sometimes followed by the pluractional marker *-k* (*er-k, tk-k*), and, on the other hand, nouns such as *abr* “man”; *kdi* “woman”; *ar* “boy”; *anese* “donkey”; *mreke* “horse”; and *d* “house,”[^58] all of them being parts of the booty and therefore, cited with figures or more summarily followed by *-se-l* “each.” Examples (20), (35), (36), (37), (42), and (43) above are instances of booty lists from royal inscriptions.
[^57]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 74–80. [^57]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 74–80.
[^58]: The word appears in REM 1003/14 and in graffito MS 57 from Musawwarat. Its translation is inferred from the context of these two occurrences and from the comparison with Andaandi *daa* “residence” and Nara *dà* “village.” See Rilly, “Graffiti for Gods and Kings.” [^58]: The word appears in REM 1003/14 and in graffito MS 57 from Musawwarat. Its translation is inferred from the context of these two occurrences and from the comparison with Andaandi *daa* “residence” and Nara *dà* “village.” See Rilly, “Graffiti for Gods and Kings.”
In his publication of the so-called Akinidad’s stela from Hamadab (REM 1003), Griffith was the first to deal with these passages. Thanks to his then recent translation of *kdi* “woman” and *abr* “man,” he correctly identified the first two clauses (*abrsel yekedi: kdisel: arseli: tkk*) as the outcome of military campaigns and tentatively translated them as “slaying men, enslaving women.”[^59] By using participles, he eluded the thorny issue of the subject of the verbs. After Griffith, few scholars addressed this particular question. In her analysis of the same passages, Inge Hofmann dealt with the meaning of the verb *ked,* but ignored the problem of its subject.[^60] As for Millet, in a first study of Kharamadoye’s royal inscription REM 0094, he suggested that *ked* was a noun meaning “slayer.”[^x31] Later, in a revised analysis of the same article, he assumed that *ked* was a verb in the third person singular,[^x32] but did not explain how this third person was morphologically expressed. In his publication of the so-called Akinidad stela from Hamadab (REM 1003), Griffith was the first to deal with these passages. Thanks to his then recent translation of *kdi* “woman” and *abr* “man,” he correctly identified the first two clauses (*abrsel yekedi: kdisel: arseli: tkk*) as the outcome of military campaigns and tentatively translated them as “slaying men, enslaving women.”[^59] By using participles, he eluded the thorny issue of the subject of the verbs. After Griffith, few scholars addressed this particular question. In her analysis of the same passages, Inge Hofmann dealt with the meaning of the verb *ked,* but ignored the problem of its subject.[^60] As for Millet, in a first study of Kharamadoye’s royal inscription REM 0094, he suggested that *ked* was a noun meaning “slayer.”[^x31] Later, in a revised analysis of the same article, he assumed that *ked* was a verb in the third person singular,[^x32] but did not explain how this third person was morphologically expressed.
[^x31]: Millet, “The Kharamadoye Inscription,” p. 38. [^x31]: Millet, “The Kharamadoye Inscription,” p. 38.
[^x32]: Millet, “The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” p. 67 [^x32]: Millet, “The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” p. 67.
[^59]: Griffith, “Meroitic Studies IV,” p. 167. Note that Griffith mistook the noun phrase *ar-se-li* “all the boys” for the verbal form he translated “enslaving,” which verb was actually *tkk.* [^59]: Griffith, “Meroitic Studies IV,” p. 167. Note that Griffith mistook the noun phrase *ar-se-li* “all the boys” for the verbal form he translated “enslaving,” which verb was actually *tkk.*
[^60]: Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 294–297. For a critical review of her translation of *ked,* see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 76–78. [^60]: Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 294–297. For a critical review of her translation of *ked,* see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 76–78.
It is necessary first to summarize the different forms that the verbs “kill” and “seize” (*vel sim.*) can take in different royal, princely, and viceregal inscriptions. **Table 2** includes a list of these forms with reference to the texts which are quoted in chronological order: It is necessary first to summarize the different forms that the verbs “kill” and “seize” (*vel sim.*) can take in different royal, princely, and viceregal inscriptions. **Table 2** includes a list of these forms with reference to the texts which are quoted in chronological order:
* Great stela of king Taneyidamani from Barkal (REM 1044, ca. 150 BCE); * Great stela of king Taneyidamani from Barkal (REM 1044, ca. 150 BCE);
* Graffito of prince Akinidad in the temple of Dakka (REM 0092, c. 25 BCE); * Graffito of prince Akinidad in the temple of Dakka (REM 0092, ca. 25 BCE);
* Stela of Amanirenas and Akinidad from Hamadab (REM 1003, ca. 20 BCE); * Stela of Amanirenas and Akinidad from Hamadab (REM 1003, ca. 20 BCE);
* Funerary stela of viceroy Abratoye from Tomas (originally Karanog, REM 1333, ca. 270 CE); * Funerary stela of viceroy Abratoye from Tomas (originally Karanog, REM 1333, ca. 270 CE);
* Late inscription of the Blemmyan kinglet Kharamadoye from the temple of Kalabsha (REM 0094, ca. 420 CE). * Late inscription of the Blemmyan kinglet Kharamadoye from the temple of Kalabsha (REM 0094, ca. 420 CE).
@ -662,7 +666,7 @@ Coming back to **Table 2**, the only marker that can actually refer to the perso
The first difficulty can be easily resolved. Once again, this issue is connected with the chronology of the inscriptions. In the early text REM 1044, the prefix is present everywhere, before *ked* “kill” as well as before the verbs meaning “take” in the following clauses, except for *tk-to* in l. 151. In the classical Meroitic stela REM 1003, it is always present in the first clause (“kill”) and can be omitted in the second clause (“take”), especially when the verb *tkk* is used. In the late inscription REM 1333, *(y)e-* is present before *ked* in the first instance of this verb, that is, at the beginning of the narrative part of the funerary stela. It is omitted in the subsequent occurrences of *ked* until l. 18, at which point it appears again. Furthermore, it is never present before the verbal forms of the second clause (“take” *vel sim.*). Curiously, the prefix *(y)e-* is lacking in REM 0092, which is contemporaneous with REM 1003, as they both mention Prince Akinidad. It is also absent from the occurrences of “kill” and “take” in the very late inscription of kinglet Kharamadoye (REM 0094). The first difficulty can be easily resolved. Once again, this issue is connected with the chronology of the inscriptions. In the early text REM 1044, the prefix is present everywhere, before *ked* “kill” as well as before the verbs meaning “take” in the following clauses, except for *tk-to* in l. 151. In the classical Meroitic stela REM 1003, it is always present in the first clause (“kill”) and can be omitted in the second clause (“take”), especially when the verb *tkk* is used. In the late inscription REM 1333, *(y)e-* is present before *ked* in the first instance of this verb, that is, at the beginning of the narrative part of the funerary stela. It is omitted in the subsequent occurrences of *ked* until l. 18, at which point it appears again. Furthermore, it is never present before the verbal forms of the second clause (“take” *vel sim.*). Curiously, the prefix *(y)e-* is lacking in REM 0092, which is contemporaneous with REM 1003, as they both mention Prince Akinidad. It is also absent from the occurrences of “kill” and “take” in the very late inscription of kinglet Kharamadoye (REM 0094).
How can we account for these variations in the distribution of the prefix *(y)e-* in the royal and princely inscriptions? In the early stela REM 1044, the prefix is systematically present on all the verbal forms. In REM 1003, a century and a half later, the prefix is used with the first verbal form (“kill”) but is omitted in the following clause (“take”) for reasons of economy, since the subject is the same as in the previous clause. In the late stela REM 1333, the first occurrence of the verb *ked* includes the prefix *ye-,* but the next three occurrences of the same verb are again subject to ellipsis, as are all the verbs of the second clauses (“take” *vel sim.*). In l. 18, the personal prefix is resumed, as a reminder for the two last occurrences of *ked,* where it is omitted again. In the very late inscription of the post-Meroitic kinglet Kharamadoye, the prefix is totally missing in the forms meaning “kill” or “take”. However, a previous sequence in l. 8, *yetolxe,* could be a verbal form with prefix *ye-.*[^64] Finally, the inscription REM 0092, though written at the same time as REM 1003, shows no prefix in the verbal forms for “kill” and “take.” However, in a previous passage in l. 5, the verb is illegible because the stone is damaged in this place. This lacuna possibly contained the prefix *e-,* whose lower stroke seems partly visible on some photographs taken prior to the relocation of the temple of Dakka when the Aswan dam was built. How can we account for these variations in the distribution of the prefix *(y)e-* in the royal and princely inscriptions? In the early stela REM 1044, the prefix is systematically present on all the verbal forms. In REM 1003, a century and a half later, the prefix is used with the first verbal form (“kill”) but is omitted in the following clause (“take”) for reasons of economy, since the subject is the same as in the previous clause. In the late stela REM 1333, the first occurrence of the verb *ked* includes the prefix *ye-,* but the next three occurrences of the same verb are again subject to ellipsis, as are all the verbs of the second clauses (“take” *vel sim.*). In l. 18, the personal prefix is resumed, as a reminder for the two last occurrences of *ked,* where it is omitted again. In the very late inscription of the post-Meroitic kinglet Kharamadoye, the prefix is totally missing in the forms meaning “kill” or “take.” However, a previous sequence in l. 8, *yetolxe,* could be a verbal form with prefix *ye-.*[^64] Finally, the inscription REM 0092, though written at the same time as REM 1003, shows no prefix in the verbal forms for “kill” and “take.” However, in a previous passage in l. 5, the verb is illegible because the stone is damaged in this place. This lacuna possibly contained the prefix *e-,* whose lower stroke seems partly visible on some photographs taken prior to the relocation of the temple of Dakka when the Aswan dam was built.
[^64]: Millet, “The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” pp. 62, 70, considered this sequence a noun group *yeto-l-xe* “on (?) the river.” The variant *yeto* for *ato* “water” is, however, attested only in REM 0307. [^64]: Millet, “The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” pp. 62, 70, considered this sequence a noun group *yeto-l-xe* “on (?) the river.” The variant *yeto* for *ato* “water” is, however, attested only in REM 0307.
@ -671,14 +675,14 @@ It seems that, in the course of time, the personal marker *(y)e-* shifted from c
The second difficulty is that a homonymous prefix *ye-* is attested in verbal compounds of the funerary benedictions, which are clearly in the 2nd person plural since these passages are prayers to Isis and Osiris. This rare alternative prefix can replace the element *p(V)s(V)-* that is generally found at the beginning of the complex verbal forms of the benedictions A and B.[^65] It is altogether the most frequent in the rare benediction D.[^66] The suffixes of the verbal compounds of the benedictions are now relatively well understood (see [5.1](#iv1)), though their prefixes still remain puzzling. Both *ye-* and *p(V)s(V)-* can best be interpreted as causative markers, as they always appear before the verbal stems meaning “drink” (*he* in benediction A) and “eat” (*xr* in benediction B), but are optional before the verb “offer, present” (*hol* in benediction C). The deities invoked in the funerary texts would be invited to “make” the deceased “drink” and “eat,” but they could either “present them with a good meal” or “have them presented with a good meal.” Prefixes are extremely rare in NES languages and only the Taman group has verbal prefixes, used exclusively for marking the person (a point to which we return below). The second difficulty is that a homonymous prefix *ye-* is attested in verbal compounds of the funerary benedictions, which are clearly in the 2nd person plural since these passages are prayers to Isis and Osiris. This rare alternative prefix can replace the element *p(V)s(V)-* that is generally found at the beginning of the complex verbal forms of the benedictions A and B.[^65] It is altogether the most frequent in the rare benediction D.[^66] The suffixes of the verbal compounds of the benedictions are now relatively well understood (see [5.1](#iv1)), though their prefixes still remain puzzling. Both *ye-* and *p(V)s(V)-* can best be interpreted as causative markers, as they always appear before the verbal stems meaning “drink” (*he* in benediction A) and “eat” (*xr* in benediction B), but are optional before the verb “offer, present” (*hol* in benediction C). The deities invoked in the funerary texts would be invited to “make” the deceased “drink” and “eat,” but they could either “present them with a good meal” or “have them presented with a good meal.” Prefixes are extremely rare in NES languages and only the Taman group has verbal prefixes, used exclusively for marking the person (a point to which we return below).
[^65]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 559–567. It accounts for 2% of the verbal forms used in the benedictions funerary texts according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. [^65]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 559–567. It accounts for 2% of the verbal forms used in the benedictions funerary texts according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8.
[^66]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 172–174. Only 20 occurrences are known so far. [^66]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 172–174. Only twenty occurrences are known so far.
The most plausible solution would be to regard *ye-* and *p(V)s(V)-* as causative verbs, such as “make” or “have” in English. In the case of *p(V)s(V)-,* a possible cognate could be Old Nubian ⲡⲉⲥ- “tell, speak, say.” The gods of the underworld could in this case could be invited, literally, to “tell” that the deceased eat and drink, that is, to make them eat and drink. As for the alternative verb *ye-* in these passages, it could be linked with Old Nubian ⲉⲓ- and Nobiin *ií-* “say,” especially because *ye-* has a variant *yi-* which is three times more frequent in funerary texts.[^67] This solution may be semantically acceptable, but it faces a major obstacle: Meroitic, like all the NES languages, is a head-final language, in which the verb is placed at the end of sentences and the auxiliary is expected to occur after the verb. In addition, the absence of TAM markers after *p(V)s(V)-,* and *ye-/yi-* points to a serial verb construction, where only the last verb is inflected for TAM. However, this is cross-linguistically attested only for consecutive verbs that share a common subject.[^68] For all these reasons, the verbal compound of the funerary benedictions requires further study. Nevertheless, the element *ye-* in these benedictions has nothing to do with the prefix *ye-* we found in the royal texts. It is just a further instance of the many homonymous morphemes that are attested in Meroitic. The most plausible solution would be to regard *ye-* and *p(V)s(V)-* as causative verbs, such as “make” or “have” in English. In the case of *p(V)s(V)-,* a possible cognate could be Old Nubian ⲡⲉⲥ- “tell, speak, say.” The gods of the underworld could in this case could be invited, literally, to “tell” that the deceased eat and drink, that is, to make them eat and drink. As for the alternative verb *ye-* in these passages, it could be linked with Old Nubian ⲉⲓ- and Nobiin *ií-* “say,” especially because *ye-* has a variant *yi-* which is three times more frequent in funerary texts.[^67] This solution may be semantically acceptable, but it faces a major obstacle: Meroitic, like all the NES languages, is a head-final language, in which the verb is placed at the end of sentences and the auxiliary is expected to occur after the verb. In addition, the absence of TAM markers after *p(V)s(V)-,* and *ye-/yi-* points to a serial verb construction, where only the last verb is inflected for TAM. However, this is cross-linguistically attested only for consecutive verbs that share a common subject.[^68] For all these reasons, the verbal compound of the funerary benedictions requires further study. Nevertheless, the element *ye-* in these benedictions has nothing to do with the prefix *ye-* we found in the royal texts. It is just a further instance of the many homonymous morphemes that are attested in Meroitic.
[^67]: The frequency of *yi-* is 6,2% according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. For Nobiin *ií-*, more commonly used with a causative suffix in the compound *ií-gìr,* see Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 356. Note that “say” is frequently used as a light verb (but not as a causative auxiliary) in the languages of Sudan, regardless of the linguistic family. For Andaandi, see El-Guzuuli, "The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi"; for Ama, see Stevenson *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 147 (my copy of the manuscript, an annotated version transmitted by Roger Blench, has the light verb *she* on pp. 146–146a and 147. Page 146a is handwritten and the page numbers on p. 147 and 148 have been corrected manually) and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 210; for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* pp. 146–147. [^67]: The frequency of *yi-* is 6,2% according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. For Nobiin *ií-*, more commonly used with a causative suffix in the compound *ií-gìr,* see Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 356. Note that “say” is frequently used as a light verb (but not as a causative auxiliary) in the languages of Sudan, regardless of the linguistic family. For Andaandi, see El-Guzuuli, "The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi"; for Ama, see Stevenson *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 147 (my copy of the manuscript, an annotated version transmitted by Roger Blench, has the light verb *she* on pp. 146–146a and 147. Page 146a is handwritten and the page numbers on p. 147 and 148 have been corrected manually) and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 210; for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* pp. 146–147.
[^68]: See Haspelmath, "The Serial Verb Construction,” esp. pp. 409–411 (with possible exception in ex. 31, where two different subjects are found). [^68]: See Haspelmath, "The Serial Verb Construction,” esp. pp. 409–411 (with possible exception in ex. 31, where two different subjects are found).
Finally, another element *ye-* is attested in several kinship noun phrases, also in funerary inscriptions. The “filiation” part of these texts specifies the mother and father of the deceased, who is said to be “the person born of X” and “the person begotten by Y.” In the major part of the inscriptions, these two compounds are *te-dxe-l* (or *t-dxe-l*) and *t-erike-l.* They include a prefixed element *t(e)-,* the participles *dxe* “born” and *erike* “begotten,” and the final article, which has a nominalizing role. Several texts include a variant with a first element *y(e)-,* namely *ye-dxe-l* and *y-erike-l.* The forms including *y(e)-* and *t(e)-* can even be found together in the same inscription, giving a further example of the aforementioned *varietas* sought by Meroitic scribes. Another kinship term, *yetmde* “younger in the maternal line, i.e., nephew/niece,” may provide the key to the element *ye-* in filiation clauses. It includes the word *mde* which refers to the mother’s family in this matrilineal society. The first element is *yet-* (pronounced /eta/ or /eda/), but has many variants: *yete, yed, yen* (with assimilation before ­*mde*). The elements *te-* and *ye-* in filiation are probably two eroded forms of *yet-,* which can be compared with Proto-Nubian *\*id,* Proto-Taman *\*at* “person,” and Nara *eítá* “body.”[^x33]. “The person born” and “the person begotten” are therefore accurate translations of *ye-dxe* and *y-erike*. The element *ye-* in these contexts is therefore originally a noun and has nothing to do with the homonymous prefix found in royal inscriptions. Finally, another element *ye-* is attested in several kinship noun phrases, also in funerary inscriptions. The “filiation” part of these texts specifies the mother and father of the deceased, who is said to be “the person born of X” and “the person begotten by Y.” In the major part of the inscriptions, these two compounds are *te-dxe-l* (or *t-dxe-l*) and *t-erike-l.* They include a prefixed element *t(e)-,* the participles *dxe* “born” and *erike* “begotten,” and the final article, which has a nominalizing role. Several texts include a variant with a first element *y(e)-,* namely *ye-dxe-l* and *y-erike-l.* The forms including *y(e)-* and *t(e)-* can even be found together in the same inscription, giving a further example of the aforementioned *varietas* sought by Meroitic scribes. Another kinship term, *yetmde* “younger in the maternal line, i.e., nephew/niece,” may provide the key to the element *ye-* in filiation clauses. It includes the word *mde* which refers to the mother’s family in this matrilineal society. The first element is *yet-* (pronounced /eta/ or /eda/), but has many variants: *yete, yed, yen* (with assimilation before ­*mde*). The elements *te-* and *ye-* in filiation are probably two eroded forms of *yet-,* which can be compared with Proto-Nubian *\*id,* Proto-Taman *\*at* “person,” and Nara *eítá* “body.”[^x33] “The person born” and “the person begotten” are therefore accurate translations of *ye-dxe* and *y-erike*. The element *ye-* in these contexts is therefore originally a noun and has nothing to do with the homonymous prefix found in royal inscriptions.
[^x33]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 496, no. 141. [^x33]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 496, no. 141.
@ -686,16 +690,16 @@ Finally, another element *ye-* is attested in several kinship noun phrases, also
In light of the above, it seems certain, first, that the verbs in the narratives of the royal inscriptions are in the first person singular and, second, that the prefix *(y)e-* is the personal subject marker of the verbs “kill” and “take.” Consequently, *ye-ked* (archaic *e-ked*), can be translated “I killed” or “I have killed” and *yerki* (archaic *erk*) as “I took,” “I have taken,” or the like. Given the meaning of these passages, the basic tense/aspect using simple stems like *ked, tkk,* and so on, must be a perfective. Alternative tenses with suffixes also are attested, as shown in **Table 2**, but for now, it is impossible to explain them. The first person singular marker *(y)e-* is probably the Meroitic reflex of the Proto-NES pronoun *\*a(-i),*[^69] reconstructed from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i,*[^70] Nara *\*a(-ga)*,[^71] and Proto-Nyima *\*a-i.* The stem of this pronoun is *\*a,* to which a suffix *\*-i* has been appended. This ending was probably a deictic particle and can be found at the end of persons’ and gods’ names in Meroitic and in Old Nubian.[^72] The Meroitic form seems to have undergone crasis[^73] /a/ + /i/ > /e/, which is also found for this pronoun in several Ajang dialects.[^74] In light of the above, it seems certain, first, that the verbs in the narratives of the royal inscriptions are in the first person singular and, second, that the prefix *(y)e-* is the personal subject marker of the verbs “kill” and “take.” Consequently, *ye-ked* (archaic *e-ked*), can be translated “I killed” or “I have killed” and *yerki* (archaic *erk*) as “I took,” “I have taken,” or the like. Given the meaning of these passages, the basic tense/aspect using simple stems like *ked, tkk,* and so on, must be a perfective. Alternative tenses with suffixes also are attested, as shown in **Table 2**, but for now, it is impossible to explain them. The first person singular marker *(y)e-* is probably the Meroitic reflex of the Proto-NES pronoun *\*a(-i),*[^69] reconstructed from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i,*[^70] Nara *\*a(-ga)*,[^71] and Proto-Nyima *\*a-i.* The stem of this pronoun is *\*a,* to which a suffix *\*-i* has been appended. This ending was probably a deictic particle and can be found at the end of persons’ and gods’ names in Meroitic and in Old Nubian.[^72] The Meroitic form seems to have undergone crasis[^73] /a/ + /i/ > /e/, which is also found for this pronoun in several Ajang dialects.[^74]
[^69]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 467–468, no. 92. The Proto-Taman is curiously *\*wa,* which can result from *\*o* through vowel-breaking. The Proto-NES genitive of the 1sg pronoun seems to have been *\*on* and might have triggered an analogical shift for the nominative in Proto-Taman. [^69]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 467–468, no. 92. The Proto-Taman is curiously *\*wa,* which can result from *\*o* through vowel-breaking. The Proto-NES genitive of the [1sg]({sc}) pronoun seems to have been *\*on* and might have triggered an analogical shift for the nominative in Proto-Taman.
[^70]: Reconstructed *\*ay* in Proto-Nubian according to Jakobi 2019: tab.2. The glide *y,* IPA [j], has no phonological status in Proto-Nubian according to my own research (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 269). For this reason, I am inclined to reconstruct this word as vowels in hiatus. [^70]: Reconstructed *\*ay* in Proto-Nubian according to Jakobi, “The Nubian Subject Pronouns,” tab. 2. The glide *y,* IPA [j], has no phonological status in Proto-Nubian according to my own research (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 269). For this reason, I am inclined to reconstruct this word as vowels in hiatus.
[^71]: In the Nara group, the ancient accusative form (with regular *\*-ga* ending) of this pronoun has replaced the nominative when the distinction between both cases was lost: see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 391 and n. 471. There is no way to know if the original nominative form was also *a-i. [^71]: In the Nara group, the ancient accusative form (with regular *\*-ga* ending) of this pronoun has replaced the nominative when the distinction between both cases was lost: see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 391 and n. 471. There is no way to know if the original nominative form was also *\*a-i*.
[^72]: In Meroitic, this particle is spelled *-i* in names of gods, for example *Amn-i* “Amun” or *Atr-i* “Hathor” and *-ye* in the names of people, for example *Abrato-ye,* name of a famous viceroy of Nubia. In Old Nubian, for example, Jesus is written ⲓ̈ⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ-ⲓ. This particle may be connected to the Meroitic vocative ending *-i*: *Wos-i* “oh Isis!” [^72]: In Meroitic, this particle is spelled *-i* in names of gods, for example *Amn-i* “Amun” or *Atr-i* “Hathor” and *-ye* in the names of people, for example *Abrato-ye,* name of a famous viceroy of Nubia. In Old Nubian, for example, Jesus is written ⲓ̈ⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ-ⲓ. This particle may be connected to the Meroitic vocative ending *-i*: *Wos-i* “oh Isis!”
[^73]: Fusion of two consecutive vowels into one. [^73]: Fusion of two consecutive vowels into one.
[^74]: For instance Karko *ê* "I" (Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 42) from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i.* [^74]: For instance Karko *ê* "I" (Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 42) from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i.*
If the form of the Meroitic marker matches its cognates in other NES languages, its syntactic use shows a substantial difference to them. In all these languages, the subject pronoun is located at the beginning of the sentence and the verb at the end (SOV word order) as in these examples from Nobiin and Ama.[^ex46] If the form of the Meroitic marker matches its cognates in other NES languages, its syntactic use shows a substantial difference to them. In all these languages, the subject pronoun is located at the beginning of the sentence and the verb at the end (SOV word order) as in these examples from Nobiin and Ama.[^ex46]
[^ex46]: Example (46) based on Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 291. [^ex46]: Example (46) is based on Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 291.
{{< gloss "(46)" >}} {{< gloss "(46)" >}}
{r} **Nobiin** {r} **Nobiin**
@ -725,19 +729,19 @@ The only NES-languages which have personal prefixes appended to the verb are the
{r} “I am a Tama.” {r} “I am a Tama.”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
This structure seems an innovation of the Taman group within the NES languages. Generally speaking, the personal affixes appended to the verb in Nara, Nubian, and Taman strongly differ from each other and cannot be reconstructed in Proto-NES. It seems that the original person marking combined independent pronouns (which are clearly related in the daughter languages) and verbal plural suffixes, which have been studied above. This system still operates in the Nyima languages. The Meroitic system – at least in the passages of the royal inscriptions under examination – seems close to the Proto-NES and Nyima system, but has innovated by displacing the subject pronoun before the verb. This innovation created a specific OSV word order for sentences including a subject pronoun, whereas the original SOV order was preserved in sentences with nominal subject. This structure seems an innovation of the Taman group within the NES languages. Generally speaking, the personal affixes appended to the verb in Nara, Nubian, and Taman strongly differ from each other and cannot be reconstructed in Proto-NES. It seems that the original person marking combined independent pronouns (which are clearly related in the daughter languages) and verbal plural suffixes, which have been studied above. This system still operates in the Nyima languages. The Meroitic system — at least in the passages of the royal inscriptions under examination — seems close to the Proto-NES and Nyima system, but has innovated by displacing the subject pronoun before the verb. This innovation created a specific OSV word order for sentences including a subject pronoun, whereas the original SOV order was preserved in sentences with nominal subject.
## Another Person Marker in Meroitic Royal Texts? {#iii5} ## Another Person Marker in Meroitic Royal Texts? {#iii5}
Instead of *(y)e-,* an alternative prefix *w-* appears before the verbal forms of *er-k* “take, capture,” *kb* “seize, and *bqo* “take control” within the royal texts REM 1044, 1003, and 0094. It never occurs with *ked* “kill,” as can be seen in the examples below.[^ex77] Instead of *(y)e-,* an alternative prefix *w-* appears before the verbal forms of *er-k* “take, capture,” *kb* “seize, and *bqo* “take control” within the royal texts REM 1044, 1003, and 0094. It never occurs with *ked* “kill,” as can be seen in the examples below.[^ex77]
[^ex77]: In (50), the reading of the first signs was made possible thanks to excellent photos and interpretation by Gilda Ferrandino in her doctoral thesis, *Studio dei testi reali meroitici,* p. 65 and pl. 29.1. For the archaic sign conventionally transcribed *H,* see Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* p. 353. In all likelihood, the form *kbxte* comes from *kb-bx-te* after haplography, as the object seems to be a plural and, accordingly, should be marked in the verb by the suffix *bx*. [^ex77]: In (50), the reading of the first signs was made possible thanks to excellent photos and interpretation by Gilda Ferrandino in her doctoral thesis, *Studio dei testi reali meroitici,* p. 65 and pl. 29.1. For the archaic sign conventionally transcribed *H,* see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 353. In all likelihood, the form *kbxte* comes from *kb-bx-te* after haplography, as the object seems to be a plural and, accordingly, should be marked in the verb by the suffix *bx*.
In (51), the word *tdxsene* includes the noun phrase *t-dx-* meaning “child (of a mother)” but the following sequence *-se-ne* is obscure. It ultimately might be a proper name, Tadakhesene, with an ending *-ne* that is common in the Meroitic personal names. In (51), the word *tdxsene* includes the noun phrase *t-dx-* meaning “child (of a mother)” but the following sequence *-se-ne* is obscure. It ultimately might be a proper name, Tadakhesene, with an ending *-ne* that is common in the Meroitic personal names.
Examples (52) and (53) differ only in the spellings of *(y)emoqe* “belongings (?)”and *(e)qebese* “their’. Examples (52) and (53) differ only in the spellings of *(y)emoqe* “belongings (?)”and *(e)qebese* “their’.
In (54), a direct genitive *Aqtoye mtekdi 2* “the two daughters of Aqatoye” should be expected for unalienable possession (cf. Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 525–527). However, the inscription REM 0094, engraved for the Blemmyan kinglet Khamaradoye after the fall of Meroe, is very late (c. 420 CE) and includes some strange features that could have resulted from language contact with Old Nubian and Blemmyan (Old Beja dialect), in which no distinction was made between alienable and unalienable possession (for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* p. 40). In (54), a direct genitive *Aqtoye mtekdi 2* “the two daughters of Aqatoye” should be expected for unalienable possession (cf. Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 525–527). However, the inscription REM 0094, engraved for the Blemmyan kinglet Khamaradoye after the fall of Meroe, is very late (c. 420 CE) and includes some strange features that could have resulted from language contact with Old Nubian and Blemmyan (Old Beja dialect), in which no distinction was made between alienable and unalienable possession (for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* p. 40).
{{< gloss "(50)" >}} {{< gloss "(50)" >}}
{r} **Meroitic** {r} **Meroitic**
@ -783,7 +787,7 @@ There is no doubt that the prefixed element *w-,* which is paradigmatically para
{r} ? captured the children of the palace(?) (and) their brothers Aruqitama and Tadakhesene(?).” (= ex. 51) {r} ? captured the children of the palace(?) (and) their brothers Aruqitama and Tadakhesene(?).” (= ex. 51)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
Three of these sentences include the subject pronoun marker *e-* “I” in the verbal compounds *e-kede-to* (twice) and *e-ked-b-to.* In two other sentences, the prefixed pronoun is absent, but implicit, in *dnetro*(?) and *tk-to.* It is difficult to account for the subject shift in the last sentence (51), where the prefixed pronoun *w-* replaces *e-*. No solution is fully satisfactory, but the most acceptable is to assume that the antecedent of the prefixed pronoun is one of the nouns of the same sentence that would be placed as its topic. These topicalized constructions are well documented in Meroitic.[^x34] They can also be found, under Meroitic influence, in the Egyptian texts of the late Napatan royal inscriptions, as in this example from king Nastasen’s stela (ll. 12–13, after *FHN* II: 478): Three of these sentences include the subject pronoun marker *e-* “I” in the verbal compounds *e-kede-to* (twice) and *e-ked-b-to.* In two other sentences, the prefixed pronoun is absent, but implicit, in *dnetro*(?) and *tk-to.* It is difficult to account for the subject shift in the last sentence (51), where the prefixed pronoun *w-* replaces *e-*. No solution is fully satisfactory, but the most acceptable is to assume that the antecedent of the prefixed pronoun is one of the nouns of the same sentence that would be placed as its topic. These topicalized constructions are well documented in Meroitic.[^x34] They can also be found, under Meroitic influence, in the Egyptian texts of the late Napatan royal inscriptions, as in this example from king Nastasen’s stela (ll. 12–13, after *FHN* II: p. 478):
[^x34]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 547–548. [^x34]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 547–548.
@ -811,33 +815,24 @@ The final prayers of the funerary texts, which Griffith termed “benedictions,
[^83]: For benedictions A and B, see also (11)–(14) above. [^83]: For benedictions A and B, see also (11)–(14) above.
{{< gloss "(57)" >}} {{< gloss "(57)" >}}
{r} *Formula A* {r} Formula A
{g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pVsV-/yi-*,[caus]({sc})|*he*,drink|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| {g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pVsV-/yi-*,[caus]({sc})|*he*,drink|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})|
{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) make her/him/them drink plentiful water” {r} “May you [pl]({sc}) make her/him/them drink plentiful water”
{r} *Formula B* {r} Formula B
{g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*pVsV-/yi-*,[caus]({sc})|*xr*,eat|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| {g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*pVsV-/yi-*,[caus]({sc})|*xr*,eat|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})|
{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) make her/him/them eat plentiful bread {r} “May you [pl]({sc}) make her/him/them eat plentiful bread
{r} *Formula C* {r} Formula C
{g} *x(re)*,meal|*mlo*,good|*(pVsV-/yi-)*,[caus]({sc})|*hol/tx*,present|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| {g} *x(re)*,meal|*mlo*,good|*(pVsV-/yi-)*,[caus]({sc})|*hol/tx*,present|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})|
{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a good meal” {r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a good meal”
{r} *Formula D* {r} Formula D
{g} *x(re)*,meal|*lh-l*,large-[det]({sc})|*(pVsV-/yi-)*,[caus]({sc})|*hol/tx*,present|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| {g} *x(re)*,meal|*lh-l*,large-[det]({sc})|*(pVsV-/yi-)*,[caus]({sc})|*hol/tx*,present|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})|
{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a large meal” {r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a large meal”
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
| | [n]({sc}) | [adj]({sc}) | [det]({sc}) | [caus]({sc}) | stem | [vnm]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) | [opt.2]({sc}) | gloss | The prefixed elements *pVsV-* or *yi-,* which obviously have a causative value but are not yet fully understood, have been studied above in [4.3](#iii3). The element *-x(e)* in the singular, *-bx(e)* in the plural, is a verbal number marker that has been analysed in section [3.3](#ii3). As the funerary benedictions are basically prayers to the gods, imperative or optative in the 2nd person plural are expected. The verbal TAM ending here is *-k-te* or *-ke-te* with a plural suffix *-k(e).* The singular TAM ending is *-te,* as seen in examples (19), (29)-(31), each of which contains a prayer to a single god. Cross-linguistically, the singular imperative is generally a simple verbal stem, e.g., English *see!,* Latin *vide!,* and Middle Egyptian *m3!* This is also true for the living NES languages: Nobiin *nàl!,* Midob *kóod!,* etc.[^84] For this reason, the verbal form with ending *-te,* which is used in the royal blessings and funerary benedictions, must be regarded as an optative rather than an imperative. However, an optional particle *-se,* which is added to the verbal compound in several funerary inscriptions,[^85] has an Old Nubian parallel in the command marker -ⲥⲟ or -ⲥⲱ.[^x35] Be it related or borrowed, this particle shows the semantic proximity of the Meroitic optative with the Old Nubian imperative.
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| A | ato | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | he | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | |
| B | at | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | xr | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) make her/him/them eat plentiful bread |
| C | x(re) | mlo | -l | (pVsV-/yi-) | hol/tx | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a good meal |
| D | x(re) | lh | -l | (pVsV-/yi-) | hol/tx | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a large meal |
**~~Table 3. The general scheme for benedictions A–D.~~**
The prefixed elements *pVsV-* or *yi-,* which obviously have a causative value but are not yet fully understood, have been studied above in [4.3](#iii3). The element *-x(e)* in the singular, *-bx(e)* in the plural, is a verbal number marker that has been analysed in section [3.3](#ii3). As the funerary benedictions are basically prayers to the gods, imperative or optative in the 2nd person plural are expected. The verbal TAM ending here is *-k-te* or *-ke-te* with a plural suffix *-k(e).* The singular TAM ending is *-te,* as seen in examples (19), (29)-(31), each of which contains a prayer to a single god. Cross-linguistically, the singular imperative is generally a simple verbal stem, e.g. English *see!,* Latin *vide!,* and Middle Egyptian *m3!* This is also true for the living NES languages: Nobiin *nàl!,* Midob *kóod!,* etc.[^84] For this reason, the verbal form with ending *-te,* which is used in the royal blessings and funerary benedictions, must be regarded as an optative rather than an imperative. However, an optional particle *-se,* which is added to the verbal compound in several funerary inscriptions,[^85] has an Old Nubian parallel in the command marker -ⲥⲟ or -ⲥⲱ.[^x35] Be it related or borrowed, this particle shows the semantic proximity of the Meroitic optative with the Old Nubian imperative.
[^x35]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §4.2. [^x35]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §4.2.
[^84]: In the Nubian group, for Nobiin: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 145; for Andaandi: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194–195; for Midob: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 58–59. In the Nara group, for Higir: Thompson, "Nera,” p. 467; for Mogoreeb: Elsadig, *Major Word Categories in Nara,* p. 66. For Tama: Palayer's unpublished grammar, §4.3; for Sungor: Lukas, “Die Sprache der Sungor in Wadai,” pp. 192, 198–199; for Mararit: El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* pp. 57–58. For Ama: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* pp. 106, 110 and Stevenson, Rottland \& Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 30; for Afitti, ibid., p. 33. In all these languages, the singular imperative is generally the simple stem of the verb. However, a suffix *-i* is found for some verbs in Nubian, Taman, and Nyima. Suppletive forms for basic verbs are attested in Nara, Taman, and Nyima. [^84]: In the Nubian group, for Nobiin: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 145; for Andaandi: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194–195; for Midob: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 58–59. In the Nara group, for Higir: Thompson, "Nera,” p. 467; for Mogoreeb: Elsadig, *Major Word Categories in Nara,* p. 66. For Tama: Palayer's unpublished grammar, §4.3; for Sungor: Lukas, “Die Sprache der Sungor in Wadai,” pp. 192, 198–199; for Mararit: El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* pp. 57–58. For Ama: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* pp. 106, 110 and Stevenson, Rottland \& Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 30; for Afitti: ibid., p. 33. In all these languages, the singular imperative is generally the simple stem of the verb. However, a suffix *-i* is found for some verbs in Nubian, Taman, and Nyima. Suppletive forms for basic verbs are attested in Nara, Taman, and Nyima.
[^85]: The particle *-se* may have an emphatic role, such as *donc* in French *dis-moi donc!* or the use of the auxiliary *do* in the English counterpart *do tell me!.* The resulting verbal compound is *pVsV-k(e)-te-se,* often reduced to *pVsV-k(e)-se* with regressive assimilation (see (40) above); cf. Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* p. 75 and Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 563. [^85]: The particle *-se* may have an emphatic role, such as *donc* in French *dis-moi donc!* or the use of the auxiliary *do* in the English counterpart *do tell me!.* The resulting verbal compound is *pVsV-k(e)-te-se,* often reduced to *pVsV-k(e)-se* with regressive assimilation (see (40) above); cf. Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* p. 75 and Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 563.
The imperative proper, in all likelihood, is the verbal form devoid of TAM markers which is used instead of the optative in several funerary texts. As shown in the following examples, it occurs either in one or two of the three main benedictions A, B, and C (a further example of *varietas*), or in all of them. Example (58) is drawn from REM 0369, an offering table from Shablul engraved for a single deceased. Example (59) is cited from a stela found in the same cemetery, REM 0381, and engraved for two persons, hence the plural verbal marker at the end of verbal compounds.[^86] The imperative proper, in all likelihood, is the verbal form devoid of TAM markers which is used instead of the optative in several funerary texts. As shown in the following examples, it occurs either in one or two of the three main benedictions A, B, and C (a further example of *varietas*), or in all of them. Example (58) is drawn from REM 0369, an offering table from Shablul engraved for a single deceased. Example (59) is cited from a stela found in the same cemetery, REM 0381, and engraved for two persons, hence the plural verbal marker at the end of verbal compounds.[^86]
@ -871,7 +866,7 @@ In these imperative forms, there is virtually no plural marker. A final suffix *
[^x36]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 297. Another solution for the lack of plural marker *-ke* is again the principle of economy, which seems to play an important role in Meroitic, as in Tama (see n. 72). [^x36]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 297. Another solution for the lack of plural marker *-ke* is again the principle of economy, which seems to play an important role in Meroitic, as in Tama (see n. 72).
[^x37]: Ibid., p. 93. [^x37]: Ibid., p. 93.
[^87]: One clear example is REM 0380, an offering table from Shablul, where benediction B is written with final verb compound *pisixrke.* The form is complete, since it ends with a word divider, it is located in the middle of a line and followed by benediction C. Note that, in this inscription, benedictions A and C have regular optative forms in *-kete.* There may be more instances of [2pl]({sc}) imperative in the benedictions. In particular, it cannot be ruled out that all or part of the verbal compounds ending with *-ke-se* are not assimilated optative forms deriving from *-ke-te-se,* but imperative with plural suffix *-ke* followed by the emphatic particle *-se* (see n. 124). [^87]: One clear example is REM 0380, an offering table from Shablul, where benediction B is written with final verb compound *pisixrke.* The form is complete, since it ends with a word divider, it is located in the middle of a line and followed by benediction C. Note that, in this inscription, benedictions A and C have regular optative forms in *-kete.* There may be more instances of [2pl]({sc}) imperative in the benedictions. In particular, it cannot be ruled out that all or part of the verbal compounds ending with *-ke-se* are not assimilated optative forms deriving from *-ke-te-se,* but imperative with plural suffix *-ke* followed by the emphatic particle *-se* (see n. 124).
[^88]: In the Meroitic private funerary iconography, the male counterpart to Isis is Anubis, or more rarely Thot. The local names of these Egyptian gods are unknown. [^88]: In the Meroitic private funerary iconography, the male counterpart to Isis is Anubis, or more rarely Thoth. The local names of these Egyptian gods are unknown.
Furthermore, a not uncommon variant of the verbal suffix *-te,* found only in the late funerary benedictions, is *-to.*[^89] It is directly appended to the verbal stem and, unlike *-te,* is never preceded by the plural marker *-ke.* In REM 0368, an offering table from Shablul, there are four benedictions, A, B, C, D. The verb in benediction A has no suffix, so that it should be an imperative in the 2nd person singular. In the subsequent three benedictions, the verbs are in the optative with the final suffix *-to.* The four verbs, most likely, are all in the singular and convey prayers to Isis. Furthermore, a not uncommon variant of the verbal suffix *-te,* found only in the late funerary benedictions, is *-to.*[^89] It is directly appended to the verbal stem and, unlike *-te,* is never preceded by the plural marker *-ke.* In REM 0368, an offering table from Shablul, there are four benedictions, A, B, C, D. The verb in benediction A has no suffix, so that it should be an imperative in the 2nd person singular. In the subsequent three benedictions, the verbs are in the optative with the final suffix *-to.* The four verbs, most likely, are all in the singular and convey prayers to Isis.
@ -900,7 +895,7 @@ From the above, it appears that the markers of the Meroitic imperative and optat
**~~Table 4. Meroitic imperative and optative suffixes.~~** **~~Table 4. Meroitic imperative and optative suffixes.~~**
The use of the suffix *-k/-g* to express the plurality of actors in the imperative (and in other moods) is widespread in Nilo-Saharan languages and particularly frequent in the NES family. Although it may have the same origin as the verbal plural marker, it must not be confused with it. The exception here is Ama, where the same morpheme *-(ì)d̪ì* is used both verbal plural marker ([3.3.2](#ii32)) and marker of the plural imperative: *kílí* “hear!,” pl. *kíld̪ì* “hear ye!”[^90] In Nara, the plural imperative is marked with a suffix *-aga.* This morpheme is attested in the two major dialects, namely in Higir *ay* “make!,” pl. *ay-aga* “make ye!”[^x40] and in Mogoreeb, *aw* “make!,” pl. *aw-aga* “make ye!”[^x41] In Mararit (Taman group), the plural imperative is marked with a morpheme *-k-,* which can be prefixed or suffixed according to the verb classes: *sîn* “eat!,” pl. *kí-síŋ-gì* “eat ye!” (prefixed); *kɛ̀dɛ̀k* “cut!,” pl. *kɛ̀d-k-ɛ̀k* “cut ye!” (suffixed).[^91] In the Nubian group, the suffix *\*-k/-g* is perhaps preserved in Midob in a palatalized form *-ic*: *kóod* “see!,” pl. *kóod-íc* “see ye!,”[^x42] but the difference with the plural verbal marker, as in Ama, is not clear. The other branches of Nubian seem to have innovated separately. In Andaandi, the [2pl]({sc}) imperative is marked with a suffix *-we*[^x38] and with a suffix *-an* in Old Nubian and Nobiin.[^x39] However, Old Nubian has a morpheme *-ke* “you,” which Van Gerven Oei analyzes as a subject clitic.[^92] It is not used for the “positive” imperative like in Meroitic, but is part of the jussive -ⲛⲕⲉ, vetitive -ⲧⲁⲛⲕⲉ(ⲥⲟ), and affirmative -ⲗⲕⲉ/-ⲥⲕⲉ. This morpheme is probably related to the Meroitic suffix *-k(e)* used in the plural imperative. The use of the suffix *-k/-g* to express the plurality of actors in the imperative (and in other moods) is widespread in Nilo-Saharan languages and particularly frequent in the NES family. Although it may have the same origin as the verbal plural marker, it must not be confused with it. The exception here is Ama, where the same morpheme *-(ì)d̪ì* is used both verbal plural marker ([3.3.2](#ii32)) and marker of the plural imperative: *kílí* “hear!,” [pl]({sc}) *kíld̪ì* “hear ye!”[^90] In Nara, the plural imperative is marked with a suffix *-aga.* This morpheme is attested in the two major dialects, namely in Higir *ay* “make!,” [pl]({sc}) *ay-aga* “make ye!”[^x40] and in Mogoreeb, *aw* “make!,” [pl]({sc}) *aw-aga* “make ye!”[^x41] In Mararit (Taman group), the plural imperative is marked with a morpheme *-k-,* which can be prefixed or suffixed according to the verb classes: *sîn* “eat!,” [pl]({sc}) *kí-síŋ-gì* “eat ye!” (prefixed); *kɛ̀dɛ̀k* “cut!,” [pl]({sc}) *kɛ̀d-k-ɛ̀k* “cut ye!” (suffixed).[^91] In the Nubian group, the suffix *\*-k/-g* is perhaps preserved in Midob in a palatalized form *-ic*: *kóod* “see!,” [pl]({sc}) *kóod-íc* “see ye!,”[^x42] but the difference with the plural verbal marker, as in Ama, is not clear. The other branches of Nubian seem to have innovated separately. In Andaandi, the [2pl]({sc}) imperative is marked with a suffix *-we*[^x38] and with a suffix *-an* in Old Nubian and Nobiin.[^x39] However, Old Nubian has a morpheme *-ke* “you,” which Van Gerven Oei analyzes as a subject clitic.[^92] It is not used for the “positive” imperative like in Meroitic, but is part of the jussive -ⲛⲕⲉ, vetitive -ⲧⲁⲛⲕⲉ(ⲥⲟ), and affirmative -ⲗⲕⲉ/-ⲥⲕⲉ. This morpheme is probably related to the Meroitic suffix *-k(e)* used in the plural imperative.
[^x38]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194–195. [^x38]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194–195.
[^x39]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §10.1.5, Werner, *Grammatik de Nobiin,* pp. 145–146. [^x39]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §10.1.5, Werner, *Grammatik de Nobiin,* pp. 145–146.
@ -915,24 +910,24 @@ The use of the suffix *-k/-g* to express the plurality of actors in the imperati
### Interpretation of the Pronominal Forms in REM 1293 {#iv21} ### Interpretation of the Pronominal Forms in REM 1293 {#iv21}
In 1999, the archaeological team of the Berlin Museum in Naga found a small stela (REM 1293) in the temple of Amun. It was nearly complete, but broken in three joining pieces. On the obverse, Queen Amanishakheto is depicted standing between god Apedemak and his wife, Amesemi. The Lion-god is seated on a throne whereas the goddess is standing behind the ruler. The two deities hold her elbows with their right hands in a gesture of legitimization. In 1999, the archaeological team of the Berlin Museum in Naga found a small stela (REM 1293) in the temple of Amun. It was nearly complete, but broken into three joining pieces. On the obverse, Queen Amanishakheto is depicted standing between god Apedemak and his wife, Amesemi. The Lion-god is seated on a throne whereas the goddess is standing behind the ruler. The two deities hold her elbows with their right hands in a gesture of legitimization.
On the reverse of the stela, an inscription in Meroitic cursive script is engraved on six lines. The first three lines include the following prayer. On the reverse of the stela, an inscription in Meroitic cursive script is engraved on six lines. The first three lines include the following prayer.
{{< gloss "(61)" >}} {{< gloss "(61)" >}}
{g} *apedemk :*,Apedemak|*dqri-te-l-i :*,Daqari-[loc-det-voc]({sc})|*amni*[*sxeto :*],Amanishakheto|*qor :* (< *qore-l*),ruler.[det]({sc})|*kdke-l :*,candace-[det]({sc})|*pwrit(e)*,life|*(a)rese :*,[2sg.gen]({sc})|*yel-x-te :*,give-[vnm-opt.2sg]({sc})|*pwrite*,life|*debse :*,[2pl.gen]({sc})|*el-x-te*,give-[vnm-opt.2sg]({sc})| {g} *apedemk :*,Apedemak|*dqri-te-l-i :*,Daqari-[loc-det-voc]({sc})|*amni*[*sxeto :*],Amanishakheto|*qor :* (< *qore-l*),ruler.[det]({sc})|*kdke-l :*,candace-[det]({sc})|*pwrit(e)*,life|*(a)rese :*,[2sg.gen]({sc})|*yel-x-te :*,give-[vnm-opt.2sg]({sc})|*pwrite*,life|*debse :*,[2pl.gen]({sc})|*el-x-te*,give-[vnm-opt.2sg]({sc})|
{r} “O Apedemak (who are) in Daqari, to Amanishakheto, the ruler, the Candace, give the life from you [sg]({sc}), give the life from you [pl]({sc})!” (REM 1293) {r} “O Apedemak (who is) in Daqari, to Amanishakheto, the ruler, the Candace, give the life from you [sg]({sc}), give the life from you [pl]({sc})!” (REM 1293)
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
The god is here invited to shower his gifts upon the ruling queen, and chiefly the most precious of them, *pwrite* “life, vital strength.” Similar instances of this prayer for King Amanakhareqerama have previously been quoted in (29) and (30). The royal text REM 1293 is engraved with great care and a sense of aesthetics that is missing in so many private inscriptions. The different phrases are accurately separated by word dividers. Conspicuously, the phrases *pwritrese* and *pwrite debse* do not include a word divider after *pwrite.* Furthermore, in the first group, *pwrite* and its extension are agglomerated into a single unit. Due to the conventions of the Meroitic alphasyllabary (see [2](#i)), the second element must have been *arese,* with an initial /a/ which was not explicitly written, because it occurred in internal position in this contracted phrase. The noun *pwrite* was pronounced /bawarit/ with the zero value of the grapheme *e.* So, the sequence *pwrite + arese* was pronounced /bawaritaresə/ and was accordingly spelled *pwritrese,* with default vowel /a/ after *t.* Additionally, the second term could not be *\*rese* because the phoneme /r/, in Meroitic as well as in all the NES languages, cannot occur in initial position.[^x43] The god is here invited to shower his gifts upon the ruling queen, and chiefly the most precious of them, *pwrite* “life, vital strength.” Similar instances of this prayer for King Amanakhareqerama have previously been quoted in (29) and (30). The royal text REM 1293 is engraved with great care and a sense of aesthetics that is missing in so many private inscriptions. The different phrases are accurately separated by word dividers. Conspicuously, the phrases *pwritrese* and *pwrite debse* do not include a word divider after *pwrite.* Furthermore, in the first group, *pwrite* and its extension are agglomerated into a single unit. Due to the conventions of the Meroitic alphasyllabary (see [2](#i)), the second element must have been *arese,* with an initial /a/ which was not explicitly written, because it occurred in internal position in this contracted phrase. The noun *pwrite* was pronounced /bawarit/ with the zero value of the grapheme *e.* So, the sequence *pwrite + arese* was pronounced /bawaritaresə/ and was accordingly spelled *pwritrese,* with default vowel /a/ after *t.* Additionally, the second term could not be *\*rese* because the phoneme /r/, in Meroitic as well as in all the NES languages, cannot occur in initial position.[^x43]
[^x43]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 230. [^x43]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 230.
The close connection between *pwrite* and its successive extensions, *arese* and *debse* is best explained if the latter are determiners. They both include the genitival postposition “of”, which also was part of the possessives *qe-se* “his/her” and *qe-be-se* “their” ([3.2](#ii2)). Consequently, in the sentence from REM 1293 cited above, the sequences *are-se* and *deb-se* must be considered as possessive adjectives, that is, genitival forms of two personal pronouns, *are* and *deb.* As the context is a prayer to a deity, the only possibility is the second person: “O Apedemak, give your life to the queen”, that is “give her the life (coming) from you.” The close connection between *pwrite* and its successive extensions, *arese* and *debse* is best explained if the latter are determiners. They both include the genitival postposition “of,” which also was part of the possessives *qe-se* “his/her” and *qe-be-se* “their” ([3.2](#ii2)). Consequently, in the sentence from REM 1293 cited above, the sequences *are-se* and *deb-se* must be considered as possessive adjectives, that is, genitival forms of two personal pronouns, *are* and *deb.* As the context is a prayer to a deity, the only possibility is the second person: “O Apedemak, give your life to the queen,” that is “give her the life (coming) from you.”
### Egyptian Parallels ### Egyptian Parallels
This wording was already used in the Egyptian texts of the royal inscriptions engraved for the kings of the 25th Dynasty and their Napatan successors. Example (62) below is cited from the dedication engraved in the Temple of Mut, built by King Taharqo inside the cliff of Jebel Barkal (ca. 680 BCE). Example (63) is a text written on each side of the figure of goddess Mut in the same temple (after *FHN* I: 133). Example (64) is an excerpt from a stela of the Napatan king Anlamani (late 7th c. BCE) erected in the temple of Kawa (after *FHN* I: 322). In the three texts, the passages of interest to the question under study are in bold characters. This wording was already used in the Egyptian texts of the royal inscriptions engraved for the kings of the 25th Dynasty and their Napatan successors. Example (62) below is cited from the dedication engraved in the Temple of Mut, built by King Taharqo inside the cliff of Jebel Barkal (ca. 680 BCE). Example (63) is a text written on each side of the figure of goddess Mut in the same temple (after *FHN* I: p. 133). Example (64) is an excerpt from a stela of the Napatan king Anlamani (late 7th c. BCE) erected in the temple of Kawa (after *FHN* I: p. 322). In the three texts, the passages of interest to the question under study are in bold characters.
{{< gloss "(62)" >}} {{< gloss "(62)" >}}
{r} **Egyptian** {r} **Egyptian**
@ -985,15 +980,15 @@ In the Meroitic stela from Naga, the context bears similarities to the situation
### Personal Pronouns in Proto-Nubian ### Personal Pronouns in Proto-Nubian
The two possessive pronouns discussed above suggest a basic form *are* for “you [sg]({sc})” and *de-b* for “you [pl]({sc})” These forms differ considerably from the pronouns I reconstructed in proto-NES, namely *\*i* for “you [sg]({sc})” and *\*i-gi* for “you [pl]({sc}).”[^x45] For Proto-Nubian, I suggested *\*i-r/\*i-n* [sg]({sc}) and *\*i-gi* or *\*u-gi* [pl]({sc}). It is beyond the scope of this article to explain in detail on which bases these proto-forms were put forward. Suffice it to say that the pronouns attested in the Taman and Nyima groups, alongside with the most conservative dialects of Nara, are very similar to each other and provided the main basis for my reconstruction. By contrast, the personal pronouns in the Nubian family show considerable variations that are difficult to reconcile. The two proto-forms I worked out were mostly based on the genitives of these pronouns, which have a better consistency among Nubian languages and with the other branches of the NES family. The two possessive pronouns discussed above suggest a basic form *are* for “you [sg]({sc})” and *de-b* for “you [pl]({sc})” These forms differ considerably from the pronouns I reconstructed in proto-NES, namely *\*i* for “you [sg]({sc})” and *\*i-gi* for “you [pl]({sc}).”[^x45] For Proto-Nubian, I suggested *\*i-r/\*i-n* [sg]({sc}) and *\*i-gi*/*\*u-gi* [pl]({sc}). It is beyond the scope of this article to explain in detail on which bases these proto-forms were put forward. Suffice it to say that the pronouns attested in the Taman and Nyima groups, alongside with the most conservative dialects of Nara, are very similar to each other and provided the main basis for my reconstruction. By contrast, the personal pronouns in the Nubian family show considerable variations that are difficult to reconcile. The two proto-forms I worked out were mostly based on the genitives of these pronouns, which have a better consistency among Nubian languages and with the other branches of the NES family.
[^x45]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 519, no. 184 and p. 528, no. 200. [^x45]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 519, no. 184 and p. 528, no. 200.
During the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium held in 2019 in Vienna, Angelika Jakobi, the leading expert on Nubian, delivered a paper entitled “The Nubian Subject Pronouns.” She revisited the reconstruction of these morphemes in Proto-Nubian and suggested new proto-forms. For the 1st person singular and the 3rd person singular and plural, her reconstructions are not so different from mine. However, there are significant discrepancies for the 1st person plural and the 2nd person singular and plural. For the latter, she suggests *\*ed* “you (sg.)” and *\*ud-i* “you (pl.).” These proto-forms are very close to the Birgid forms *edi* and *udi,* but quite different from the Midob counterparts *íin* and *ùŋŋú.* Of course, it is tempting to believe that Jakobi’s reconstruction is mainly based on Birgid. However, this language, in many respects, is the most conservative within the Nubian family, whereas Midob is one of the most innovative.[^95] During the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium held in 2019 in Vienna, Angelika Jakobi, the leading expert on Nubian, delivered a paper entitled “The Nubian Subject Pronouns.” She revisited the reconstruction of these morphemes in Proto-Nubian and suggested new proto-forms. For the 1st person singular and the 3rd person singular and plural, her reconstructions are not so different from mine. However, there are significant discrepancies for the 1st person plural and the 2nd person singular and plural. For the latter, she suggests *\*ed* “you [sg]({sc})” and *\*ud-i* “you [pl]({sc}).” These proto-forms are very close to the Birgid forms *edi* and *udi,* but quite different from the Midob counterparts *íin* and *ùŋŋú.* Of course, it is tempting to believe that Jakobi’s reconstruction is mainly based on Birgid. However, this language, in many respects, is the most conservative within the Nubian family, whereas Midob is one of the most innovative.[^95]
[^95]: For conservative aspects in Birgid, see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 367–368. [^95]: For conservative aspects in Birgid, see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 367–368.
In Old Nubian, we find ⲉⲓⲣ “you (sg.)” and ⲟⲩⲣ "you (pl.),” in Nobiin, *ìr* and *úr* respectively, and Mattokki–Andaandi *er* and *ir.* I had previously interpreted the final *-r* as an original article appended to personal pronouns in Proto-Nubian.[^x46] In Midob and in Tama, the article is actually *-r,* but it was *-l* in Meroitic and early Old Nubian, so that it must also have been *-l* in Proto-Nubian. In addition, the Midob reflexes of the Proto-Nubian liquids are often unpredictable,[^y1] whereas they are stable in Nile Nubian. For these reasons, I now think that at least in Proto-Nubian, the final *-r* was part of the stem of these personal pronouns. In Old Nubian, we find ⲉⲓⲣ “you [sg]({sc})” and ⲟⲩⲣ "you [pl]({sc}),” in Nobiin, *ìr* and *úr* respectively, and Mattokki–Andaandi *er* and *ir.* I had previously interpreted the final *-r* as an original article appended to personal pronouns in Proto-Nubian.[^x46] In Midob and in Tama, the article is actually *-r,* but it was *-l* in Meroitic and early Old Nubian, so that it must also have been *-l* in Proto-Nubian. In addition, the Midob reflexes of the Proto-Nubian liquids are often unpredictable,[^y1] whereas they are stable in Nile Nubian. For these reasons, I now think that at least in Proto-Nubian, the final *-r* was part of the stem of these personal pronouns.
[^x46]: Ibid., p. 383. [^x46]: Ibid., p. 383.
[^y1]: Ibid., p. 254. [^y1]: Ibid., p. 254.
@ -1005,7 +1000,7 @@ On the other hand, Nubian languages have a propensity for intervocalic /r/ to sh
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| black | \*ur(r)-i | ⲟⲩⲇⲙ | úrúm | úudè | | black | \*ur(r)-i | ⲟⲩⲇⲙ | úrúm | úudè |
| great | \*ŋoor | ⳟⲟⲇ "Lord" | Nóor "Lord" | -gor "old" | | great | \*ŋoor | ⳟⲟⲇ "Lord" | Nóor "Lord" | -gor "old" |
| 24 hours | \*ugur | ⲟⲁ̄ⲣ/ⲟ̄ⲁ̄ⲇⲉ "night" | áwá, pl. àwàrìi "night" | (nergi) | | 24 hours | \*ugur | ⲟⲁ̄ⲣ/ⲟ̄ⲁ̄ⲇⲉ "night" | áwá, [pl]({sc}) àwàrìi "night" | (nergi) |
| six | \*gorji | ⲅⲟⲣⳝⲟ | górjò | korʃi | | six | \*gorji | ⲅⲟⲣⳝⲟ | górjò | korʃi |
| sorghum | \*usi | ⲙⲁⲇⲉ | márée | (uze) | | sorghum | \*usi | ⲙⲁⲇⲉ | márée | (uze) |
| sword[^96] | | ⲡⲁⲇⲁⳡ | fáráɲ | (ʃíbídí) | | sword[^96] | | ⲡⲁⲇⲁⳡ | fáráɲ | (ʃíbídí) |
@ -1017,9 +1012,9 @@ On the other hand, Nubian languages have a propensity for intervocalic /r/ to sh
[^97]: "White" is in Old Nubian ⳟⲟⲩⲗⲟⲩ, Nobiin *nùlù.* The adjective ⲁ̄ⲇⲱ is an Old Dongolawi word used in an Old Nubian letter. The modern form which is given here, *aro,* is Mattokki–Andaandi. [^97]: "White" is in Old Nubian ⳟⲟⲩⲗⲟⲩ, Nobiin *nùlù.* The adjective ⲁ̄ⲇⲱ is an Old Dongolawi word used in an Old Nubian letter. The modern form which is given here, *aro,* is Mattokki–Andaandi.
[^98]: The reflex /l/ in Birgid is unexpected. It could actually be a flap [ɾ], which is acoustically very close to [l] but is cross-linguistically a frequent allophone of /d/ in intervocalic position, particularly in American English. However, it was transcribed as *l* by both McMichael and Thelwall (cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 425). Accordingly, the Midob form, which has an undisputable *d,* has been added here. [^98]: The reflex /l/ in Birgid is unexpected. It could actually be a flap [ɾ], which is acoustically very close to [l] but is cross-linguistically a frequent allophone of /d/ in intervocalic position, particularly in American English. However, it was transcribed as *l* by both McMichael and Thelwall (cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 425). Accordingly, the Midob form, which has an undisputable *d,* has been added here.
As this vacillation between /r/ and /d/ is shared by languages that belong to different branches of the Nubian family, it was in all likelihood present in Proto-Nubian. As a result, the proto-form *\*ed* for “you (sg.),” which is suggested by Jakobi, is certainly possible. Likewise, it is possible that already in Proto-Nubian, a variant *\*er* was present. As this vacillation between /r/ and /d/ is shared by languages that belong to different branches of the Nubian family, it was in all likelihood present in Proto-Nubian. As a result, the proto-form *\*ed* for “you [sg]({sc}),” which is suggested by Jakobi, is certainly possible. Likewise, it is possible that already in Proto-Nubian, a variant *\*er* was present.
In my previous reconstruction of Proto-Nubian, I assumed that the plural marker of the subject pronouns “we,” “you (pl.),” and “they” was *\*-gi* and consequently suggested *\*agi* for “we” and *\*igi* ~ *\*ugi* for “you (pl.).” That assumption was based on parallels with Taman and Nyima, where this morpheme is easily reconstructable. However, I could not account for the consonant /d/ in the Birgid reflexes *adi* and *udi.*[^99] If the Proto-Nubian pronoun of the second person singular is *\*ed,* the Birgid reflexes become perfectly regular and the Proto-Nubian plural marker is definitely *\*i.* This could be a development of Proto-NES *\*-gi,* which implies that *\*g* was already lost in Proto-Nubian, like in modern English *night* and *brought.* In conclusion, if Proto-Nubian “you (sg.)” was indeed *\*ed,* a plural form *\*ud-i* is a consistent reconstruction. The initial vowel *\*u* instead of the expected *\*e* still has to be explained, but it is substantiated by the Old Nubian, Ajang,[^100] and Birgid reflexes. In my previous reconstruction of Proto-Nubian, I assumed that the plural marker of the subject pronouns “we,” “you [pl]({sc}),” and “they” was *\*-gi* and consequently suggested *\*agi* for “we” and *\*igi* ~ *\*ugi* for “you [pl]({sc}).” That assumption was based on parallels with Taman and Nyima, where this morpheme is easily reconstructable. However, I could not account for the consonant /d/ in the Birgid reflexes *adi* and *udi.*[^99] If the Proto-Nubian pronoun of the second person singular is *\*ed,* the Birgid reflexes become perfectly regular and the Proto-Nubian plural marker is definitely *\*i.* This could be a development of Proto-NES *\*-gi,* which implies that *\*g* was already lost in Proto-Nubian, like in modern English *night* and *brought.* In conclusion, if Proto-Nubian “you [sg]({sc})” was indeed *\*ed,* a plural form *\*ud-i* is a consistent reconstruction. The initial vowel *\*u* instead of the expected *\*e* still has to be explained, but it is substantiated by the Old Nubian, Ajang,[^100] and Birgid reflexes.
[^99]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 250–251 and n. 7. [^99]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 250–251 and n. 7.
[^100]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” t. 5. [^100]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” t. 5.
@ -1036,7 +1031,7 @@ Consequently, the two Meroitic pronouns *are* and *deb* for the second person si
### The Second Person Singular Subject Pronoun in Personal Names {#iv24} ### The Second Person Singular Subject Pronoun in Personal Names {#iv24}
Most Meroitic personal names, and particularly the rulers’, are complex compound words. This resulted in names being unique most of the time, and it may actually have been the purpose of this complexity and length. Among the royal names, only Arkamani was used twice, a sharp contrast to the seven Mentuhoteps and the eleven Ramesseses of the Egyptian history. These Kushite royal names seem to have been the birth-names of the rulers, to which the name of a god, most frequently Amun, was possibly – but not systematically – added at the time of their ascension to the throne. In some of them, “Amun” is fully integrated into the syntax of the compound, so that it may originally have been present, be it an actual birth-name or a completely new name given to the ruler. For instance, Amannote-erike means “the one whom Amon of Thebes has begotten” and it is obvious that in this case, the god name was not added at a later stage. Many Kushite royal names are theophoric and probably fall within the Egyptian naming tradition. For example, “Natakamani” probably means “Amun is strong” and is the Meroitic counterpart of Egyptian Nakht-Amun or Amun-Nakht. Most Meroitic personal names, and particularly the rulers’, are complex compound words. This resulted in names being unique most of the time, and it may actually have been the purpose of this complexity and length. Among the royal names, only Arkamani was used twice, a sharp contrast to the seven Mentuhoteps and the eleven Ramesseses of the Egyptian history. These Kushite royal names seem to have been the birth-names of the rulers, to which the name of a god, most frequently Amun, was possibly — but not systematically — added at the time of their ascension to the throne. In some of them, “Amun” is fully integrated into the syntax of the compound, so that it may originally have been present, be it an actual birth-name or a completely new name given to the ruler. For instance, Amannote-erike means “the one whom Amon of Thebes has begotten” and it is obvious that in this case, the god name was not added at a later stage. Many Kushite royal names are theophoric and probably fall within the Egyptian naming tradition. For example, “Natakamani” probably means “Amun is strong” and is the Meroitic counterpart of Egyptian Nakht-Amun or Amun-Nakht.
However, several royal names seem to follow a local tradition of naming an individual from physical features or temperament and can therefore be considered genuine birth-names. A stunning example of this tradition among private individuals is the name of the mother of a deceased woman from Sedeinga. She was called *Xmlowiteke,* which means “she who likes a good meal.”[^104] It can be either the birth-name of a greedy baby or a nickname given later during her lifetime. In the royal sphere, a name like Aspelta falls in the same tradition. The name of this Napatan king, written in Meroitic, was recently identified by the author among the graffiti of Great Enclosure in Musawwarat es-Sufra. It was written *Isplto*.[^x48] If the first segment *Is-* is the Meroitic cognate of Old Nubian ⲉⲓⲥ- “other,”[^105] it could mean “another is given” and refer, for example, to the birth of a second son, a possible heir to the throne. This name would be appropriate for a ruler like Aspelta, who succeeded his brother Anlamani at a very young age. However, several royal names seem to follow a local tradition of naming an individual from physical features or temperament and can therefore be considered genuine birth-names. A stunning example of this tradition among private individuals is the name of the mother of a deceased woman from Sedeinga. She was called *Xmlowiteke,* which means “she who likes a good meal.”[^104] It can be either the birth-name of a greedy baby or a nickname given later during her lifetime. In the royal sphere, a name like Aspelta falls in the same tradition. The name of this Napatan king, written in Meroitic, was recently identified by the author among the graffiti of Great Enclosure in Musawwarat es-Sufra. It was written *Isplto*.[^x48] If the first segment *Is-* is the Meroitic cognate of Old Nubian ⲉⲓⲥ- “other,”[^105] it could mean “another is given” and refer, for example, to the birth of a second son, a possible heir to the throne. This name would be appropriate for a ruler like Aspelta, who succeeded his brother Anlamani at a very young age.
@ -1068,7 +1063,7 @@ The first element, *are* “you [sg]({sg})” is followed by the sequences “-n
## The Prefixed Second Person Singular Marker in the Verbal Complex {#iv3} ## The Prefixed Second Person Singular Marker in the Verbal Complex {#iv3}
We have previously seen that there were in Meroitic two types of person markers encoding the subject of the verb. First, independent pronouns such as *qo* “he, she” or *are* “you (sg.),” attested so far only in non-verbal clauses, and second, prefixed elements which are appended to the verbal compound, such as *ye-* “I” and *w-* “he/she(?),” in verbal clauses. For the 2nd person singular, a morpheme *d-*, which has remained unexplained for twenty years, is very likely the prefixed person marker that matches the independent pronoun are “you (sg.).” We have previously seen that there were in Meroitic two types of person markers encoding the subject of the verb. First, independent pronouns such as *qo* “he, she” or *are* “you [sg]({sc}),” attested so far only in non-verbal clauses, and second, prefixed elements which are appended to the verbal compound, such as *ye-* “I” and *w-* “he/she(?),” in verbal clauses. For the 2nd person singular, a morpheme *d-*, which has remained unexplained for twenty years, is very likely the prefixed person marker that matches the independent pronoun are “you [sg]({sc}).”
In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show that a small corpus of Meroitic inscriptions on papyrus, leather strips, and ostraca, which were hitherto regarded as private letters, were actually protection spells.[^110] They were purchased by pilgrims from the temples, especially the temple of Amun in Qasr Ibrim, where the major part of these texts were found by the British team of the Egypt Exploration Society. I termed them “Amuletic Oracular Decrees,” after the name of the same type of texts attested in Egypt in the early first millennium BCE. Because of the rich vocabulary they include, describing all kind of misfortunes from which their owner will be protected, the translation of these inscriptions is still in an early stage. However, the scheme of the introductive parts of the texts is clear. They are divided in two groups according the prefixes of the verbal forms, *y(i)-* or *d-*. In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show that a small corpus of Meroitic inscriptions on papyrus, leather strips, and ostraca, which were hitherto regarded as private letters, were actually protection spells.[^110] They were purchased by pilgrims from the temples, especially the temple of Amun in Qasr Ibrim, where the major part of these texts were found by the British team of the Egypt Exploration Society. I termed them “Amuletic Oracular Decrees,” after the name of the same type of texts attested in Egypt in the early first millennium BCE. Because of the rich vocabulary they include, describing all kind of misfortunes from which their owner will be protected, the translation of these inscriptions is still in an early stage. However, the scheme of the introductive parts of the texts is clear. They are divided in two groups according the prefixes of the verbal forms, *y(i)-* or *d-*.
@ -1077,27 +1072,27 @@ In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show t
{{< gloss "(67)" >}} {{< gloss "(67)" >}}
{r} **Meroitic** {r} **Meroitic**
{r} **Prefix** ***y(i)-*** (REM 0345, 1096, 1152(?), 1317/1168 (?), 1319, 1321, 1325, 1326) {r} **Prefix** ***y(i)-*** (REM 0345, 1096, 1152(?), 1317/1168 (?), 1319, 1321, 1325, 1326)
{r} *Formula A* {r} Formula A
{g} name-*i*,[pn-voc]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*y-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})| {g} name-*i*,[pn-voc]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*y-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})|
{r} *Formula B* {r} Formula B
{r} God names and epithets {r} God names and epithets
{r} *Formula C* {r} Formula C
{g} *mlowi*,health|*y-ni*,[pm-vc]({sc})|*bnebeseni*,?| {g} *mlowi*,health|*y-ni*,[pm-vc]({sc})|*bnebeseni*,?|
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(68)" >}} {{< gloss "(68)" >}}
{r} **Prefix** ***d-*** (REM 0361, 1174(?), 1236, 1322, 1323, 1324) {r} **Prefix** ***d-*** (REM 0361, 1174(?), 1236, 1322, 1323, 1324)
{r} *Formula A* {r} Formula A
{g} noun-*l*,[n-det]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})| {g} noun-*l*,[n-det]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})|
{r} *Formula B* {r} Formula B
{r} God names and epithets {r} God names and epithets
{r} *Formula C* {r} Formula C
{g} *mlowi*,health|*d-n-se-l-o*,[pm-vc-det-cop]({sc})|*bnebeseni*,?| {g} *mlowi*,health|*d-n-se-l-o*,[pm-vc-det-cop]({sc})|*bnebeseni*,?|
{{< /gloss >}} {{< /gloss >}}
The decrees always begin with the mention of the beneficiaries in the vocative. They can be called either by their name or by their title. The verbal compound in formula A (*yirohe-se-l-o-wi/d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*) is partly obscure, but it is not an optative or an imperative ([5.1](#iv1)). It is a periphrastic form – probably with an aspectual or modal value – since it includes the determiner *-l* used as nominalizer, followed by the copula. Accordingly, an explicit personal marker is expected, more precisely a [2sg]([sc]), because of the vocative. Many texts are so damaged that it is impossible to know whether the initial vocative phrase included a name or a title, but each time it is preserved, the formulae with initial *d-* occur after the titles and those with initial *y(i)-* after the proper names. This initial *d-* is very likely the expected 2nd person subject prefix, a short version of the independent pronoun *are/\*ade* “you [sg]({sc})” or the singular of *de-b* “you [pl]({sc}),” without the plural suffix *-b.* The decrees always begin with the mention of the beneficiaries in the vocative. They can be called either by their name or by their title. The verbal compound in formula A (*yirohe-se-l-o-wi/d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*) is partly obscure, but it is not an optative or an imperative ([5.1](#iv1)). It is a periphrastic form — probably with an aspectual or modal value — since it includes the determiner *-l* used as nominalizer, followed by the copula. Accordingly, an explicit personal marker is expected, more precisely a [2sg]([sc]), because of the vocative. Many texts are so damaged that it is impossible to know whether the initial vocative phrase included a name or a title, but each time it is preserved, the formulae with initial *d-* occur after the titles and those with initial *y(i)-* after the proper names. This initial *d-* is very likely the expected 2nd person subject prefix, a short version of the independent pronoun *are/\*ade* “you [sg]({sc})” or the singular of *de-b* “you [pl]({sc}),” without the plural suffix *-b.*
The verb used in formula A is *arohe,* which, in these oracular decrees, probably means “take under someone’s protection”.[^111] It can also signify “take control,” hence “take prisoner” in military contexts (see (20)). From the two nouns groups present in formula A, only *wte-li* "life(time)" is known. A very tentative translation of formula A with prefix *d-* would be “Oh you, the XXX, you shall (?) be protected for your lifetime and your ???.” The other prefix *y(i)-* remains an enigma. It is not certain that it can be also regarded as a personal marker. Since *yi-* is a late spelling for initial /i/, it may be present in the form of the sign *i* in the verbal compound *d-i-(a)rohe-se-l-o-wi.* In that case, *yiroheselowi* would be a variant of *d-irohe-se-l-o-wi* unmarked for person. The verb used in formula A is *arohe,* which, in these oracular decrees, probably means “take under someone’s protection.”[^111] It can also signify “take control,” hence “take prisoner” in military contexts (see (20)). From the two nouns groups present in formula A, only *wte-li* "life(time)" is known. A very tentative translation of formula A with prefix *d-* would be “Oh you, the XXX, you shall (?) be protected for your lifetime and your ???.” The other prefix *y(i)-* remains an enigma. It is not certain that it can be also regarded as a personal marker. Since *yi-* is a late spelling for initial /i/, it may be present in the form of the sign *i* in the verbal compound *d-i-(a)rohe-se-l-o-wi.* In that case, *yiroheselowi* would be a variant of *d-irohe-se-l-o-wi* unmarked for person.
[^111]: The Old Nubian verb ⲁ̄ⲣⲟⲩ-ⲁⲅⲁⲣ “protect” is probably related to the Meroitic verb *arohe,* rather than borrowed, if the link suggested by Browne with ⲁ̄ⲣⲟⲩ “rain” is correct (Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* p. 19). [^111]: The Old Nubian verb ⲁ̄ⲣⲟⲩ-ⲁⲅⲁⲣ “protect” is probably related to the Meroitic verb *arohe,* rather than borrowed, if the link suggested by Browne with ⲁ̄ⲣⲟⲩ “rain” is correct (Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* p. 19).
@ -1105,7 +1100,7 @@ The verb used in formula A is *arohe,* which, in these oracular decrees, probabl
In conclusion, a general table of the personal markers that have been identified or merely hypothesised in this article is given below. The reader must keep in mind that some of those results are still tentative. However, they illustrate the significant advances that the linguistic comparison has recently made possible in the decipherment of the Meroitic texts. In conclusion, a general table of the personal markers that have been identified or merely hypothesised in this article is given below. The reader must keep in mind that some of those results are still tentative. However, they illustrate the significant advances that the linguistic comparison has recently made possible in the decipherment of the Meroitic texts.
| | 1sg | 2sg | 3sg | 1pl | 2pl | 3pl | | | [1sg]({sc}) | [2sg]({sc}) | [3sg]({sc}) | [1pl]({sc}) | [2pl]({sc}) | [3pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Independent Subject Pronoun** | ? | are (< \*ade) | qo | ? | deb | qoleb | | **Independent Subject Pronoun** | ? | are (< \*ade) | qo | ? | deb | qoleb |
| **Prefixed Person Marker** | (y)e- | d- | w-(?) | ? | ? | ? | | **Prefixed Person Marker** | (y)e- | d- | w-(?) | ? | ? | ? |
@ -1115,7 +1110,7 @@ In conclusion, a general table of the personal markers that have been identified
**~~Table 6. Meroitic Person Markers~~** **~~Table 6. Meroitic Person Markers~~**
| | Sg. | Pl. | | | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Subject** | -∅ | -b | | **Subject** | -∅ | -b |
| **Object** | -x(e) | -bx(e) | | **Object** | -x(e) | -bx(e) |
@ -1172,7 +1167,7 @@ In conclusion, a general table of the personal markers that have been identified
# Bibliography # Bibliography
Armbruster, Charles. H. ![*Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar.*](bib:9148401a-3ae7-423a-aab5-05e0dd4a9bcb) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Armbruster, Charles. H. ![*Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar.*](bib:1513d4f3-3175-4ade-8e5e-b8e4738c3f11) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Bashir, Abeer. ![“Address and Reference Terms in Midob (Darfur Nubian).”](bib:a03136b3-82d7-443d-874b-1c2168633274) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 133–153. Bashir, Abeer. ![“Address and Reference Terms in Midob (Darfur Nubian).”](bib:a03136b3-82d7-443d-874b-1c2168633274) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 133–153.

124
content/article/starostin.md
View file

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
title: "Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages" title: "Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages"
authors: ["georgestarostin.md"] authors: ["georgestarostin.md"]
abstract: "The paper offers a critical analysis of the proposal to dismantle the genetic unity of the so-called Nile-Nubian languages by positioning one of its former constituents, the Nobiin language, as the earliest offshoot from the Common Nubian stem. Combining straightforward lexicostatistical methodology with more scrupulous etymological analysis of the material, I argue that the evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Nobiin is the earliest offshoot may and, in fact, should rather be interpreted as evidence for a strong lexical substrate in Nobiin, accounting for its accelerated rate of change in comparison to the closely related Kenuzi–Dongolawi (Mattokki–Andaandi) cluster." abstract: "The paper offers a critical analysis of the proposal to dismantle the genetic unity of the so-called Nile-Nubian languages by positioning one of its former constituents, the Nobiin language, as the earliest offshoot from the Common Nubian stem. Combining straightforward lexicostatistical methodology with more scrupulous etymological analysis of the material, I argue that the evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Nobiin is the earliest offshoot may and, in fact, should rather be interpreted as evidence for a strong lexical substrate in Nobiin, accounting for its accelerated rate of change in comparison to the closely related Kenuzi–Dongolawi (Mattokki–Andaandi) cluster."
keywords: ["comparative linguistics", "Nilo-Saharan", "glottochronology", "lexicostatistics", "Nubian"] keywords: ["comparative linguistics", "Nilo-Saharan", "glottochronology", "lexicostatistics", "Nubian", "West Nilotic"]
--- ---
# Introduction # Introduction
@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ This is, for instance, the default classification model adopted in Joseph Greenb
[^1]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 85. [^1]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 85.
[^2]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 84. [^2]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 84.
More recently, however, an important and challenging hypothesis on a re-classification of Nubian has been advanced by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst.[^3] 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 than Nobiin (**Table 1**). More recently, however, an important and challenging hypothesis on a re-classification of Nubian has been advanced by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst.[^3] 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 than Nobiin (**Table 1**).
[^3]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”; Bechhaus-Gerst, *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal*; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin*. [^3]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”; Bechhaus-Gerst, *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal*; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin*.
@ -35,16 +35,16 @@ More recently, however, an important and challenging hypothesis on a re-classifi
[^t1]: Bechhaus-Gerst, *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal,* p. 88. [^t1]: Bechhaus-Gerst, *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal,* p. 88.
In Bechhaus-Gerstʼs view, such a discrepancy could only be interpreted as evidence of Kenuzi-Dongolawi and Nobiin not sharing an intermediate common "Nile-Nubian" ancestor (if they did share one, its modern descendants should be expected to have more or less the same percentages of matches with the other Nubian subgroups). Instead, she proposed independent lines of development for the two dialect clusters, positioning Nobiin as not just a separate branch of Nubian, but actually the earliest segregating branch of Nubian. Consequently, in her standard historical scenario described at length in two monographs, there was not one, but two separate migrations into the Nile Valley from the original Nubian homeland (somewhere in South Kordofan/Darfur) — one approximately around 1,500 BCE (the ancestors of modern Nobiin-speaking people), and one around the beginning of the Common Era (speakers of Kenuzi-Dongolawi). As for the multiple exclusive similarities between Nobiin and Kenuzi-Dongolawi, these were explained away as results of "intensive language contact."[^4] The lexicostatistical evidence was further supported by the analysis of certain phonetic and grammatical peculiarities of Nobiin that separate it from Kenuzi-Dongolawi; however, as of today it is the lexical specificity of Nobiin that remains at the core of the argument. In Bechhaus-Gerstʼs view, such a discrepancy could only be interpreted as evidence of Kenuzi–Dongolawi and Nobiin not sharing an intermediate common "Nile-Nubian" ancestor (if they did share one, its modern descendants should be expected to have more or less the same percentages of matches with the other Nubian subgroups). Instead, she proposed independent lines of development for the two dialect clusters, positioning Nobiin as not just a separate branch of Nubian, but actually the earliest segregating branch of Nubian. Consequently, in her standard historical scenario described at length in two monographs, there was not one, but two separate migrations into the Nile Valley from the original Nubian homeland (somewhere in South Kordofan/Darfur) — one approximately around 1,500 BCE (the ancestors of modern Nobiin-speaking people), and one around the beginning of the Common Era (speakers of Kenuzi–Dongolawi). As for the multiple exclusive similarities between Nobiin and Kenuzi–Dongolawi, these were explained away as results of "intensive language contact.”[^4] The lexicostatistical evidence was further supported by the analysis of certain phonetic and grammatical peculiarities of Nobiin that separate it from Kenuzi–Dongolawi; however, as of today it is the lexical specificity of Nobiin that remains at the core of the argument.
[^4]: Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 22. [^4]: Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 22.
Bechhaus-Gerstʼs classificatory model, with its important implications not only for the history of Nubian peoples, but also for the theoretical and methodological development of historical and areal linguistics in general, remains somewhat controversial. While it has been embraced in the recent editions of such influential online language catalogs as [Ethnologue](https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/nubian) and [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251) and is often quoted as an important example of convergent linguistic processes in Africa,[^5] specialists in the field often remain undecided,[^6] and it is concluded in the most recent handbook on African linguistics that "the internal classification of Nubian remains unclear."[^7] 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.[^8] Bechhaus-Gerstʼs classificatory model, with its important implications not only for the history of Nubian peoples, but also for the theoretical and methodological development of historical and areal linguistics in general, remains somewhat controversial. While it has been embraced in the recent editions of such influential online language catalogs as [Ethnologue](https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/nubian) and [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251) and is often quoted as an important example of convergent linguistic processes in Africa,[^5] specialists in the field often remain undecided,[^6] and it is concluded in the most recent handbook on African linguistics that "the internal classification of Nubian remains unclear.”[^7] 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.[^8]
[^5]: E.g., Heine & Kuteva, "Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages." [^5]: E.g., Heine & Kuteva, "Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.”
[^6]: E.g., Jakobi, "The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nu­bian Consonants." [^6]: E.g., Jakobi, "The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nu­bian Consonants.”
[^7]: Güldemann, "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa," p. 283. [^7]: Güldemann, "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa,” p. 283.
[^8]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 211–288; Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan," pp. 1180–1183. We will return to Rillyʼs arguments in the final section of this paper. [^8]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 211–288; Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan,” pp. 1180–1183. We will return to Rillyʼs arguments in the final section of this paper.
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. 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.
@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ Let us look again more closely (**Table 2**) at the lexicostatistical evidence,
**~~Table 2b. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob \(Starostin\)[^t2b]~~** **~~Table 2b. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob \(Starostin\)[^t2b]~~**
[^t2a]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered” [^t2a]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”
[^t2b]: Storostin, *Языки Африки*. [^t2b]: Starostin, *Языки Африки*.
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. The situation remains the same if we substitute Midob with any other non-Nile-Nubian language, such as Birgid or any of the multiple Hill Nubian idioms. 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. The situation remains the same if we substitute Midob with any other non-Nile-Nubian language, such as Birgid or any of the multiple Hill Nubian idioms.
@ -82,15 +82,15 @@ The tricky part in investigating this situation is determining the status of tho
![The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst](../static/images/bechhaus.png "The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst") ![The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst](../static/images/bechhaus.png "The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst")
**Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst** **~~Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst~~**
Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [III](#iii) 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.[^10] 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. Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [III](#iii) 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.[^10] 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.
[^10]: 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, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Starostin, *Языки Африки*), 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. [^10]: 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, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Starostin, *Языки Африки*), 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 should 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.
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.[^11] The lexical items are classified into three groups: 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.[^11] The lexical items are classified into three groups:
[^11]: 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, *Языки Африки,* 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 [The Global Lexicostatistical Database](http://starling.rinet.ru/new100). [^11]: 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, *Языки Африки,* pp. 224–295. 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 [The Global Lexicostatistical Database](http://starling.rinet.ru/new100).
* 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). * 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).
* 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. * 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.
@ -98,13 +98,13 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
[^12]: 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 *Grammatik des Nobiin*; if the word is missing from Wernerʼs relatively short glossary, additional forms may be drawn upon from either older sources, such as Lepsius's *Nubische Grammatik*, or newer ones, e.g., Khalil's *Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache* (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 *Old Nubian Dictionary.* [^12]: 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 *Grammatik des Nobiin*; if the word is missing from Wernerʼs relatively short glossary, additional forms may be drawn upon from either older sources, such as Lepsius's *Nubische Grammatik*, or newer ones, e.g., Khalil's *Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache* (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 *Old Nubian Dictionary.*
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, *Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis*; Dongolawi (D) — Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian*; Midob (M) — Werner, *Tìdn-áal*; Birgid (B) — Thelwall, "A Birgid Vocabulary List"; Dilling (Dl) — Kauczor, *Die Bergnubische Sprache*. 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, *Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguisyic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups*. 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, *Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis*; Dongolawi (D) — Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian*; Midob (M) — Werner, *Tìdn-áal*; Birgid (B) — Thelwall, "A Birgid Vocabulary List”; Dilling (Dl) — Kauczor, *Die Bergnubische Sprache*. 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, *Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguisyic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups*.
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, *Языки Африки*. 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. 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, *Языки Африки*. 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.
# 100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data # 100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data
## I. Nobiin/Kenuzi-Dongolawi Isoglosses ## I. Nobiin/Kenuzi–Dongolawi Isoglosses
### I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses {#i1} ### I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses {#i1}
@ -156,19 +156,19 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
* “warm (hot)”: N *ɟùg*, K/D *ɟug-ri* (= M *sùːw*). ◊ From PN *\*cug-*. * “warm (hot)”: N *ɟùg*, K/D *ɟug-ri* (= M *sùːw*). ◊ From PN *\*cug-*.
* “who”: N *nàːy*, K *niː*, D *nɪː* (= M *kə̀ː-rén*, B *neː-ta*, Dl *de*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ŋə(y)*. * “who”: N *nàːy*, K *niː*, D *nɪː* (= M *kə̀ː-rén*, B *neː-ta*, Dl *de*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ŋə(y)*.
[^13]: 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 *\*g-*, together with ON *gouwi* "shield.” However, in both of these cases K/D also show *k-* (cf. K/D *karu* "shield"), which goes against regular correspondences for PN *\*g-* (which should yield K/D *g-*, see "red"), meaning that it is Nobiin and not the other languages that actually have an innovation here. [^13]: 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 *\*g-*, together with ON *gouwi* "shield.” However, in both of these cases K/D also show *k-* (cf. K/D *karu* "shield”), which goes against regular correspondences for PN *\*g-* (which should yield K/D *g-*, see "red”), meaning that it is Nobiin and not the other languages that actually have an innovation here.
[^horn]: Reconstruction somewhat uncertain, but initial *\*ŋ-* is fairly clearly indicated by the correspondences; see detailed discussion in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 56–57. [^horn]: Reconstruction somewhat uncertain, but initial *\*ŋ-* is fairly clearly indicated by the correspondences; see detailed discussion in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 56–57.
[^14]: 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). [^14]: 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).
[^sun]: Hofmann, *Material für eine Meroitische Gram­ma­tik,* 86. [^sun]: Hofmann, *Material für eine Meroitische Gram­ma­tik,* 86.
[^tongue]: See the detailed discussion on this phonetically unusual root in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* p. 80. [^tongue]: See the detailed discussion on this phonetically unusual root in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* p. 80.
[^15]: Bell, "Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language," p. 10. [^15]: Bell, "Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language,” p. 10.
### I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses {#i2} ### I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses {#i2}
* “all”: N *màlléː*, K *malleː*, D *mallɛ*. * “all”: N *màlléː*, K *malleː*, D *mallɛ*.
* “big”: N *dàwwí*, K/D *duː-l*. * “big”: N *dàwwí*, K/D *duː-l*.
* “burn”: N *ɟùgé-èr*, K/D *ɟug*. * “burn”: N *ɟùgé-èr*, K/D *ɟug*.
* “egg”: N *kúmbúː*, D *kumbu*. ◊ Replaced in K by the recent compound innovation *gas-katti* (where the first root probably = *gaːsi* “heavy, hard, rough"), but clearly reconstructible for Nile-Nubian on the whole. * “egg”: N *kúmbúː*, D *kumbu*. ◊ Replaced in K by the recent compound innovation *gas-katti* (where the first root probably = *gaːsi* “heavy, hard, rough”), but clearly reconstructible for Nile-Nubian on the whole.
* “feather”: N *šipir*,[^feather] D *sɪbɪr*. * “feather”: N *šipir*,[^feather] D *sɪbɪr*.
* “leaf”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug*. ◊ Same word as “ear.” * “leaf”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug*. ◊ Same word as “ear.”
* “man”: N *ògɟí-l*, K *ogiɟ*, D *ogɪɟ*. * “man”: N *ògɟí-l*, K *ogiɟ*, D *ogɪɟ*.
@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
### II.1. Potential K/D innovations {#ii1} ### II.1. Potential K/D innovations {#ii1}
* “bark”: *àːcì* (= M *àccì-dì*). ◊ Possibly < PN *\*aci* “bark, chaff.” As opposed to K/D *gabad* (no parallels in other languages). * “bark”: *àːcì* (= M *àccì-dì*). ◊ Possibly < PN *\*aci* “bark, chaff.” As opposed to K/D *gabad* (no parallels in other languages).
* “fly”: *wáːy-ìr* (= B *maː-r*). ◊ May reflect PN *\*way-* “to fly” (*\*w- - m-* is regular in B). However, the corresponding form in D is *war* “to jump, leap, spring,” and typologically the development “jump” → “fly” is far more common than the reverse. Opposed to K *firr*, D *fɪrr* “to fly” with no parallels outside of Nile-Nubian. * “fly”: *wáːy-ìr* (= B *maː-r*). ◊ May reflect PN *\*way-* “to fly” (*\*w- > m-* is regular in B). However, the corresponding form in D is *war* “to jump, leap, spring,” and typologically the development “jump” → “fly” is far more common than the reverse. Opposed to K *firr*, D *fɪrr* “to fly” with no parallels outside of Nile-Nubian.
* “liver”: N *dìbèː* (= M *tèmmèɟí*). ◊ In D, the old word has been replaced by the Arabic borrowing *kɪbdaːd*. The isogloss between N and M allows to reconstruct PN *\*dib-* “liver.” * “liver”: N *dìbèː* (= M *tèmmèɟí*). ◊ In D, the old word has been replaced by the Arabic borrowing *kɪbdaːd*. The isogloss between N and M allows to reconstruct PN *\*dib-* “liver.”
* (?) “night”: N *áwá* (= ON *oar-*). ◊ A rare case where K/D are clearly more innovative than N: K/D *ugu*ː “night” occasionally has the additional meaning “24 hours,” and further comparison with ON *uk-r- ~ uk-l-* “day,” K *ug-reːs*, D *ug-rɛːs*, N *ùg-réːs*, M *ùːd* (< *\*ugu-d*) id. suggests that “24 hours; day-night cycle” was the original meaning. On the other hand, N *áwá* is comparable with M *òːd* (< *\*awa-d*?) and could very well be the original PN equivalent. * (?) “night”: N *áwá* (= ON *oar-*). ◊ A rare case where K/D are clearly more innovative than N: K/D *ugu*ː “night” occasionally has the additional meaning “24 hours,” and further comparison with ON *uk-r- ~ uk-l-* “day,” K *ug-reːs*, D *ug-rɛːs*, N *ùg-réːs*, M *ùːd* (< *\*ugu-d*) id. suggests that “24 hours; day-night cycle” was the original meaning. On the other hand, N *áwá* is comparable with M *òːd* (< *\*awa-d*?) and could very well be the original PN equivalent.
* “skin”: N *náwá* (< *\*nawar*, cf. pl. *nàwàr-íː*; = B *noːr*, Dl *dor*, etc.). ◊ Opposed to K *aɟin*, D *aɟɪn* “skin, leather.” * “skin”: N *náwá* (< *\*nawar*, cf. pl. *nàwàr-íː*; = B *noːr*, Dl *dor*, etc.). ◊ Opposed to K *aɟin*, D *aɟɪn* “skin, leather.”
@ -201,46 +201,46 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
### III.1. Nobiin-exclusive Items with a Nubian Etymology {#iii1} ### III.1. Nobiin-exclusive Items with a Nubian Etymology {#iii1}
* “blood”: N *díːs* (= ON *dis-*). ◊ Related to K *des*, D *dɛs*, M *tèssì* “oil; liquid fat; butterʼ; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M *ə̀ggə́r*, B *igir*, Dl *ogor*, etc.). * “blood”: N *díːs* (= ON *dis-*). ◊ Related to K *des*, D *dɛs*, M *tèssì* “oil; liquid fat; butter”; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M *ə̀ggə́r*, B *igir*, Dl *ogor*, etc.).
* (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” - Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here). * (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” > Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here).
* “hear”: N *úkké-èr* (= ON *ulg-ir- ~ ulg-ar- ~ ulk-ir-*). ◊ Transparent derivation from *ulug* “ear.” The old verbal root “hear” is present in K/D (K *giɟ-ir*, D *gɪɟ-ir*) and Hill Nubian (Dl *ki-er-* etc.) < PN *\*gi(ɟ)-*. The situation in Old Nubian/Nobiin is seemingly innovative. * “hear”: N *úkké-èr* (= ON *ulg-ir- ~ ulg-ar- ~ ulk-ir-*). ◊ Transparent derivation from *ulug* “ear.” The old verbal root “hear” is present in K/D (K *giɟ-ir*, D *gɪɟ-ir*) and Hill Nubian (Dl *ki-er-* etc.) < PN *\*gi(ɟ)-*. The situation in Old Nubian/Nobiin is seemingly innovative.
* “meat”: N *áríɟ*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent for “flesh, meat” is *gad-*, with a likely etymological parallel in M *kàdì* “meat without bones.” As for *áríɟ*, the shape of this word is reminiscent of an adjectival derivate (cf. *fáríɟ* “thick, heavyʼ), making it comparable with K *aːre*, D *aːrɛ* “inside, interior.” The most common Nubian equivalent for “meat,” however, is *\*kosi ~ \*kosu* - K/D *kusu*, M *òsò-ŋí*, B *kozi*, Dl *kwaɟe*, etc. * “meat”: N *áríɟ*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent for “flesh, meat” is *gad-*, with a likely etymological parallel in M *kàdì* “meat without bones.” As for *áríɟ*, the shape of this word is reminiscent of an adjectival derivate (cf. *fáríɟ* “thick, heavyʼ), making it comparable with K *aːre*, D *aːrɛ* “inside, interior.” The most common Nubian equivalent for “meat,” however, is *\*kosi ~ \*kosu* > K/D *kusu*, M *òsò-ŋí*, B *kozi*, Dl *kwaɟe*, etc.
* (?) “root”: N *ɟúː*. ◊ Perhaps related to D *ɟuː* “nether stone for grinding,” K *ɟuː* “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 *dulist-* (no etymology). The most common form for “root” in Nubian is *\*ir-* (M *ír-dí*, Dl *ir-tad*, etc.). * (?) “root”: N *ɟúː*. ◊ Perhaps related to D *ɟuː* “nether stone for grinding,” K *ɟuː* “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 *dulist-* (no etymology). The most common form for “root” in Nubian is *\*ir-* (M *ír-dí*, Dl *ir-tad*, etc.).
* “say”: N *íːg-ìr* (= ON *ig-ir* “tell"). ◊ Same as D *iːg* “tell, narrate"; in N, this seems to have become the main equivalent for “say.” Other ON words with similar meanings include the verbs *pes-* (direct speech marker), *il-* (“speak,” “tell") and *we-* (very rare, probably a K/D dialectism); the latter is the common Nubian equivalent for “say” (cf. K *weː*, D *wɛː*, Dl *fe*, Kadaru *wei*, etc.). * “say”: N *íːg-ìr* (= ON *ig-ir* “tell”). ◊ Same as D *iːg* “tell, narrate”; in N, this seems to have become the main equivalent for “say.” Other ON words with similar meanings include the verbs *pes-* (direct speech marker), *il-* (“speak,” “tell”) and *we-* (very rare, probably a K/D dialectism); the latter is the common Nubian equivalent for “say” (cf. K *weː*, D *wɛː*, Dl *fe*, Kadaru *wei*, etc.).
* “swim”: N *kúcc-ìr*. ◊ Not attested in ON; phonetically corresponds to D *kuɟ-* “to be above,” *kuɟ-ur-* “to place above, set above,” *kuc-cɛg-* “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). * “swim”: N *kúcc-ìr*. ◊ Not attested in ON; phonetically corresponds to D *kuɟ-* “to be above,” *kuɟ-ur-* “to place above, set above,” *kuc-cɛg-* “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).
* “tree”: N *kóy* (= ON *koir-*). ◊ Comparable with D *koɪd* “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 *\*pər* - Dl *hor*, Dair *or*, Wali *fʊ́r*, K *ber* “wood,” D *bɛr* “wood” (the meaning “tree” in K/D, as in N, is expressed by an innovation: K *ɟowwi*, D *ɟoːwwɪ*, formerly “*Acacia nilotica*”). * “tree”: N *kóy* (= ON *koir-*). ◊ Comparable with D *koɪd* “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 *\*pər* > Dl *hor*, Dair *or*, Wali *fʊ́r*, K *ber* “wood,” D *bɛr* “wood” (the meaning “tree” in K/D, as in N, is expressed by an innovation: K *ɟowwi*, D *ɟoːwwɪ*, formerly “*Acacia nilotica*”).
* “we”: N *ù:* (= ON *u-*). ◊ ON has two 1pl pronouns: *u-* and *e-r-*, 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 *ùː*, K/D only have *a-r-*. On the external level, K/D forms are better supported (cf. M. *àː-dí*, B *a-di*), but forms cognate with N *ùː* are also occasionally found in Hill Nubian, e.g. Wali *ʊ̌ʔ*.[^we] Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that *ùː* may well be a PN archaism retained in N. * “we”: N *ù:* (= ON *u-*). ◊ ON has two [1pl]({sc}) pronouns: *u-* and *e-r-*, 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 *ùː*, K/D only have *a-r-*. On the external level, K/D forms are better supported (cf. M. *àː-dí*, B *a-di*), but forms cognate with N *ùː* are also occasionally found in Hill Nubian, e.g., Wali *ʊ̌ʔ*.[^we] Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that *ùː* may well be a PN archaism retained in N.
[^earth]: Werner. *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 357. [^earth]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 357.
[^earth2]: The meanings “sand; dust” are also indicated as primary for Nobiin *iskid ~ iskit* in Khalil, *Wörterbuch der nubischen Spra­che,* p. 48. [^earth2]: The meanings “sand; dust” are also indicated as primary for Nobiin *iskid ~ iskit* in Khalil, *Wörterbuch der nubischen Spra­che,* p. 48.
[^we]: Krell. *Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups*, p. 40. [^we]: Krell, *Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups*, p. 40.
### III.2. Nobiin-exclusive Items without a Nubian Etymology {#iii2} ### III.2. Nobiin-exclusive Items without a Nubian Etymology {#iii2}
* “dog”: N *múg* (= ON *mug-*). ◊ Not related to PN *\*bəl* (K *wel*, D *wɛl*, M *pə̀ːl*, B *mɛl*, DL *bol*, etc.); no parallels in other Nubian languages. * “dog”: N *múg* (= ON *mug-*). ◊ Not related to PN *\*bəl* (K *wel*, D *wɛl*, M *pə̀ːl*, B *mɛl*, DL *bol*, etc.); no parallels in other Nubian languages.
* “dry”: N *sámá*. ◊ Not related to K *soww-od*, D *soww-ɛd* “dry” or their cognates in Hill Nubian (Debri *šua-du*, etc.). * “dry”: N *sámá*. ◊ Not related to K *soww-od*, D *soww-ɛd* “dry” or their cognates in Hill Nubian (Debri *šua-du*, etc.).
* (?) “eat”: N *kàb-* (= ON *kap-*). ◊ ON shows dialectal variety: besides the more common *kap-*, there is also at least one hapax case of ON *kal-* “eat” = K/D *kal*. It is not entirely clear if the two roots are indeed unrelated: a scenario where ON *kap-*, N *kàb-* < Nile-Nubian *\*kal-b-* (cf. such derived stems as D *kal-bu-* pass. “be eaten,” *kal-bɛːr* “eat to satisfactionʼ) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D *kal* < PN *\*kɔl* has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl *kol*, M *ə̀l-* id. Regardless of etymologization, N *kàb-* is clearly innovative. * (?) “eat”: N *kàb-* (= ON *kap-*). ◊ ON shows dialectal variety: besides the more common *kap-*, there is also at least one hapax case of ON *kal-* “eat” = K/D *kal*. It is not entirely clear if the two roots are indeed unrelated: a scenario where ON *kap-*, N *kàb-* < Nile-Nubian *\*kal-b-* (cf. such derived stems as D *kal-bu-* pass. “be eaten,” *kal-bɛːr* “eat to satisfaction”) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D *kal* < PN *\*kɔl* has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl *kol*, M *ə̀l-* id. Regardless of etymologization, N *kàb-* is clearly innovative.
* “fat”: N *sìlèː*. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages. * “fat”: N *sìlèː*. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages.
* “fish”: N *ángíssí*. ◊ Replaces ON *watto-*; neither of the two words has any clear parallels in K/D or any other Nubian languages. A possible, though questionable, internal etymology is “living in water” (from *aɲ-* “to live” + *\*essi* “water,” see notes on “water” below). * “fish”: N *ángíssí*. ◊ Replaces ON *watto-*; neither of the two words has any clear parallels in K/D or any other Nubian languages. A possible, though questionable, internal etymology is “living in water” (from *aɲ-* “to live” + *\*essi* “water,” see notes on “water” below).
* “full”: N *mídd-ìr* (= ON *medd- ~ midd-* “to be full/readyʼ). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *\*merid-* (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure. * “full”: N *mídd-ìr* (= ON *medd- ~ midd-* “to be full/ready”). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *\*merid-* (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure.
* (?) “good”: N *màs.* ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent *gèn* (= ON *gen-*), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better"), is clearly cognate with D *gɛn* “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl *ken*, Debri *kɛŋ* “good,” etc., going back to PN *\*gen-*. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to [I.1](#i1). * (?) “good”: N *màs.* ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent *gèn* (= ON *gen-*), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better”), is clearly cognate with D *gɛn* “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl *ken*, Debri *kɛŋ* “good,” etc., going back to PN *\*gen-*. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to [I.1](#i1).
* “hair”: N *šìgír-tí*. ◊ Not attested in ON. The form is similar to K *siːr* “hair,” but phonetic correspondences would be irregular (*\*-g-* should not be deleted in K). On the contrary, D *dɪl-tɪ* “hair” perfectly corresponds to M *tèː-dì*, B *dill-e*, Dl *tel-ti*, etc. and is reconstructible as PN *\*del-* or *\*dɛl-*. Forms in N and K would seem to be innovations — perhaps the result of separate borrowings from a common non-Nubian source. * “hair”: N *šìgír-tí*. ◊ Not attested in ON. The form is similar to K *siːr* “hair,” but phonetic correspondences would be irregular (*\*-g-* should not be deleted in K). On the contrary, D *dɪl-tɪ* “hair” perfectly corresponds to M *tèː-dì*, B *dill-e*, Dl *tel-ti*, etc. and is reconstructible as PN *\*del-* or *\*dɛl-*. Forms in N and K would seem to be innovations — perhaps the result of separate borrowings from a common non-Nubian source.
* “lie /down/”: N *fìyy-ìr* (= ON *pi-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. * “lie (down)”: N *fìyy-ìr* (= ON *pi-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages.
* “mountain”: N *mùléː*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent is *naɟ-*. No parallels in other languages. Opposed to M *òːr*, B *kúːr*, Dl *kulí*, Karko *kúrù,* etc. < PN *\*kur-* (in K/D this word was replaced by borrowings from Arabic). * “mountain”: N *mùléː*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent is *naɟ-*. No parallels in other languages. Opposed to M *òːr*, B *kúːr*, Dl *kulí*, Karko *kúrù,* etc. < PN *\*kur-* (in K/D this word was replaced by borrowings from Arabic).
* “name”: N *tàŋìs* (= ON *taŋis-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The most common Nubian equivalent for “name” is K *erri*, D *ɛrrɪ*, M *ə́rí*, B *erei*, Dl *or,* etc. < PN *\*əri*. * “name”: N *tàŋìs* (= ON *taŋis-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The most common Nubian equivalent for “name” is K *erri*, D *ɛrrɪ*, M *ə́rí*, B *erei*, Dl *or,* etc. < PN *\*əri*.
* “new”: N *míríː* (= ON *miri-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “new” is K *eːr*, D *ɛr*, B *eːr*, Dl *er* < PN *\*ɛːr*. * “new”: N *míríː* (= ON *miri-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “new” is K *eːr*, D *ɛr*, B *eːr*, Dl *er* < PN *\*ɛːr*.
* “road”: N *dáwwí* (= ON *dawi- ~ dawu-*). ◊ Although it is likely that *dáwwí* < *\*dari* (see “rain” above), the word is hardly directly related to K *darub*, D *darɪb*[^17] 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. * “road”: N *dáwwí* (= ON *dawi- ~ dawu-*). ◊ Although it is likely that *dáwwí* < *\*dari* (see “rain” above), the word is hardly directly related to K *darub*, D *darɪb*[^17] 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.
* “seed”: N *kóɟìr* (= ON *koɟir-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “seed” is *\*ter-* (K *teːri*, D *tɛːrɪ*, Dl *ter-ti*). * “seed”: N *kóɟìr* (= ON *koɟir-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “seed” is *\*ter-* (K *teːri*, D *tɛːrɪ*, Dl *ter-ti*).
* “small”: N *kùdúːd*. ◊ No parallels in other languages, but the word is generally unstable throughout the entire family. * “small”: N *kùdúːd*. ◊ No parallels in other languages, but the word is generally unstable throughout the entire family.
* “stand”: N *ménɟ-ìr*. ◊ Attested only once in ON (as *meɟɟ-*), where the usual equivalent for “stand” is *noɟ(ɟ)-*. The corresponding K/D stem is K *teːb*, D *tɛːb*, but a better candidate for PN “stand” is the isogloss between M *tèkk-ér-* and Dl *tek-er* < PN *\*tek-*. * “stand”: N *ménɟ-ìr*. ◊ Attested only once in ON (as *meɟɟ-*), where the usual equivalent for “stand” is *noɟ(ɟ)-*. The corresponding K/D stem is K *teːb*, D *tɛːb*, but a better candidate for PN “stand” is the isogloss between M *tèkk-ér-* and Dl *tek-er* < PN *\*tek-*.
* “stone”: N *kìd* (= ON *kit-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “stone” is *\*kul-* (K/D *kulu*, M *ùllì*, B *kul-di*). * “stone”: N *kìd* (= ON *kit-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “stone” is *\*kul-* (K/D *kulu*, M *ùllì*, B *kul-di*).
* “tail”: N *ɟèlèw*. ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “tail” is *\*ɛːb* (K *eːw*, D *ɛːu*, M *èːmí*, Dl *ɛb*, etc.). The old vocabulary of Lepsius still gives aw as an alternate equivalent,[^18] meaning that *ɟèlèw* is clearly an innovation of unclear origin. (Possibly a concatenation of *\*ɛːb* with some different first root?). * “tail”: N *ɟèlèw*. ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “tail” is *\*ɛːb* (K *eːw*, D *ɛːu*, M *èːmí*, Dl *ɛb*, etc.). The old vocabulary of Lepsius still gives aw as an alternate equivalent,[^18] meaning that *ɟèlèw* is clearly an innovation of unclear origin. (Possibly a concatenation of *\*ɛːb* with some different first root?).
* “water”: N *ámán* (= ON *aman-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “water” is *\*əs-ti* (K *essi*, D *ɛssɪ*, M *ə́ːcí*, B *eɟi*, Dl *ɔti*, etc.). The innovative, rather than archaic, character of N *ámán* is clearly seen from the attestation of such idiomatic formations as *ès-kàlèː ~ às-kàlèː* “water wheel” and *màːɲ-éssí* “tear” (lit. “eye-water"); see also notes on the possible internal etymologization of “fish” above. The word *ámán* has frequently been compared to the phonetically identical common Berber equivalent for “water,” *\*ama-n*,[^19] but the inability to find any additional Nobiin–Berber parallels with the same degree of phonetic and semantic similarity make the comparison less reliable than one could hope for. * “water”: N *ámán* (= ON *aman-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “water” is *\*əs-ti* (K *essi*, D *ɛssɪ*, M *ə́ːcí*, B *eɟi*, Dl *ɔti*, etc.). The innovative, rather than archaic, character of N *ámán* is clearly seen from the attestation of such idiomatic formations as *ès-kàlèː ~ às-kàlèː* “water wheel” and *màːɲ-éssí* “tear” (lit. “eye-water”); see also notes on the possible internal etymologization of “fish” above. The word *ámán* has frequently been compared to the phonetically identical common Berber equivalent for “water,” *\*ama-n*,[^19] but the inability to find any additional Nobiin–Berber parallels with the same degree of phonetic and semantic similarity make the comparison less reliable than one could hope for.
* “white”: N *nùlù* (= ON *nulu-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “white” is *\*ar-* (K/D *ar-o*, M *àdd-é*, B *eːl-e*, Dl *ɔr-i*, etc.). * “white”: N *nùlù* (= ON *nulu-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “white” is *\*ar-* (K/D *ar-o*, M *àdd-é*, B *eːl-e*, Dl *ɔr-i*, etc.).
[^17]: As per Bechhaus-Gerst, "Nile-Nubian Reconsidered," p. 93. [^17]: As per Bechhaus-Gerst, "Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 93.
[^18]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 274. [^18]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 274.
[^19]: Where *\*-n* is a productive plural marker, cf. Bechhaus-Gerst, "Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen," p. 109. [^19]: Where *\*-n* is a productive plural marker, cf. Bechhaus-Gerst, "Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen,” p. 109.
### III.3. Nobiin-exclusive Recent Borrowings {#iii3} ### III.3. Nobiin-exclusive Recent Borrowings {#iii3}
@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
Based on the presented data and the etymological discussion accompanying (or not accompanying) individual pieces of it, the following observations can be made: Based on the presented data and the etymological discussion accompanying (or not accompanying) individual pieces of it, the following observations can be made:
1. Altogether, [III.2](#iii2) 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 [III.3](#iii3)). 1. Altogether, [III.2](#iii2) contains twenty 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 [III.3](#iii3)).
2. Analysis of [III.1](#iii1) 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. 2. Analysis of [III.1](#iii1) 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.
3. It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D ([II.1](#ii1)) 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). 3. It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D ([II.1](#ii1)) 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).
# Conclusions # Conclusions
@ -266,46 +266,46 @@ By contrast, the scenario that retains Nobiin within Nile-Nubian, but postulates
[^20]: 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, *Grammatical Contact in the Sahara.* [^20]: 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, *Grammatical Contact in the Sahara.*
This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a "pre-Nile- Nubian substrate" in Nobiin by Claude Rilly,[^21] 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. This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a "pre-Nile- Nubian substrate" in Nobiin by Claude Rilly,[^21] who, based on a general distributional analysis of Nubian lexicon, claims to identify no fewer than fifty-one 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 fifty-one 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.
[^21]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 285–289, [^21]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 285–289.
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. 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.
The aspect of chronology has previously been discussed in glottochronological terms.[^22] 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 (**fig. 2**): The aspect of chronology has previously been discussed in glottochronological terms.[^22] 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 (**fig. 2**):
[^22]: Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 34–36; Vasilyey & Starostin, "Leksikostatisticheskaja klassifikatsija nubijskikh jazykov." [^22]: Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 34–36; Vasilyey & Starostin, "Лексикостатистическая классификация нубийских языков.”
![Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages](../static/images/classification.png "Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages") ![Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages](../static/images/classification.png "Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages")
**Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages with glottochronological datings (generated by the StarlingNJ method[^23]** **~~Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages with glottochronological datings (generated by the StarlingNJ method)[^23]~~**
[^23]: 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)." [^23]: 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).”
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. 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.
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. 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.
Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) similarities between his 51 "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" elements and other languages spoken in the region today or in antiquity, reached the conclusion that the substrate in question may have contained two layers: one related to ancient Meroitic, and still another one coming from the same Northern branch of Eastern Sudanic languages to which Nubian itself is claimed to belong.[^24] An interesting example of the former would be, e.g., the resemblance between ON *mašal* “sun” and Meroitic *ms* “sun, sun god,” while the latter may be illustrated with the example of Nobiin *šìgír-tí* “hair” = Tama *sìgít* id. However, few of Rillyʼs other parallels are equally convincing — most of them are characterized by either significant phonetic (e.g. Nobiin *súː* vs. Nara *sàː* “milk") or semantic (e.g., Nobiin *nóːg* “house” vs. Nara *lòg* “earth") discrepancies, not something one would really expect from contact relations that only took place no earlier than two thousand years ago. Subsequent research has not managed to alleviate that problem: cf., e.g., the attempt to derive Nobiin *nùlù* “white” from proto-Northeast Sudanic *\*ŋesil* “tooth,”[^25] unconvincing due to multiple phonetic and semantic issues at the same time. Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) similarities between his fifty-one "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" elements and other languages spoken in the region today or in antiquity, reached the conclusion that the substrate in question may have contained two layers: one related to ancient Meroitic, and still another one coming from the same Northern branch of Eastern Sudanic languages to which Nubian itself is claimed to belong.[^24] An interesting example of the former would be, e.g., the resemblance between ON *mašal* “sun” and Meroitic *ms* “sun, sun god,” while the latter may be illustrated with the example of Nobiin *šìgír-tí* “hair” = Tama *sìgít* id. However, few of Rillyʼs other parallels are equally convincing — most of them are characterized by either significant phonetic (e.g., Nobiin *súː* vs. Nara *sàː* “milk”) or semantic (e.g., Nobiin *nóːg* “house” vs. Nara *lòg* “earth”) discrepancies, not something one would really expect from contact relations that only took place no earlier than two thousand years ago. Subsequent research has not managed to alleviate that problem: cf., e.g., the attempt to derive Nobiin *nùlù* “white” from proto-Northeast Sudanic *\*ŋesil* “tooth,”[^25] unconvincing due to multiple phonetic and semantic issues at the same time.
[^24]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 285. [^24]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 285.
[^25]: Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan," pp. 1181–1182. [^25]: Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan,” pp. 1181–1182.
In *Языки Африки,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,[^26] who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in [III.2](#iii2) yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as: In *Языки Африки,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,[^26] who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in [III.2](#iii2) yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as:
* *túllí* “smoke” — cf. Nuer *toːl*, Dinka *tol* “smoke"; * *túllí* “smoke” — cf. Nuer *toːl*, Dinka *tol* “smoke”;
* *kìd* “stone” — cf. Luo *kidi*, Shilluk *kit*, etc. “stone"; * *kìd* “stone” — cf. Luo *kidi*, Shilluk *kit*, etc. “stone”;
* *ɟèlèw* “tail” — cf. Nuer *ɟual*, Dinka *yɔl*, Mabaan *yilɛ*, etc. “tail.” * *ɟèlèw* “tail” — cf. Nuer *ɟual*, Dinka *yɔl*, Mabaan *yilɛ*, etc. “tail.”
Additionally, Nobiin *múg* “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *\*-ŋɔk-*[^27] and Kalenjin *\*ŋoːk*,[^28] assuming the possibility of assimilation (*\*ŋ- - m-* 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. Additionally, Nobiin *múg* “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *\*-ŋɔk-*[^27] and Kalenjin *\*ŋoːk*,[^28] assuming the possibility of assimilation (*\*ŋ- - m-* 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.
[^26]: Thelwall, "Lexicostatistical Relations be­twe­en Nu­bian, Daju and Dinka," pp. 273–274. [^26]: Thelwall, "Lexicostatistical Relations be­twe­en Nu­bian, Daju and Dinka,” pp. 273–274.
[^27]: Vossem, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354. [^27]: Vossem, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354.
[^28]: Rottland, *Die Südnilotischen Sprachen,* p. 390. [^28]: Rottland, *Die Südnilotischen Sprachen,* p. 390.
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. 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.
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). 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).
# Abbreviations # Abbreviations
@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ In this particular case, I believe that the evidence speaks strongly in favor of
* D — Dongolawi; * D — Dongolawi;
* Dl — Dilling; * Dl — Dilling;
* K — Kenuzi; * K — Kenuzi;
* K/D — Kenuzi-Dongolawi; * K/D — Kenuzi–Dongolawi;
* M — Midob; * M — Midob;
* N — Nobiin; * N — Nobiin;
* ON — Old Nubian; * ON — Old Nubian;
@ -324,31 +324,31 @@ In this particular case, I believe that the evidence speaks strongly in favor of
Armbruster, Charles H. ![*Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon.*](bib:80085e08-a9b3-4099-b044-b1b7ebab73f0) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Armbruster, Charles H. ![*Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon.*](bib:80085e08-a9b3-4099-b044-b1b7ebab73f0) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. !["‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered."](bib:615083cc-73d6-4252-bdc4-a9e29adecd7e) In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lio­nel Be­n­der. Ham­burg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. !["‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered.”](bib:615083cc-73d6-4252-bdc4-a9e29adecd7e) In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lio­nel Be­n­der. Ham­burg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. !["Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen."](bib:ef1e63ed-e757-493c-8782-11058023c697) *Sprache und Geschichte in Afrik* 6 (1985): pp. 7–134. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. !["Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen.”](bib:ef1e63ed-e757-493c-8782-11058023c697) *Sprache und Geschichte in Afrik* 6 (1985): pp. 7–134.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer diachronen Soziolinguistik.* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1996. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer diachronen Soziolinguistik.* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1996.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. ![*The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change.*](bib:de6d1b1f-d6ff-45e1-93e4-31cf934bb1ee) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. ![*The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change.*](bib:de6d1b1f-d6ff-45e1-93e4-31cf934bb1ee) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Bell, Herman. !["Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language."](bib:9926e196-3eea-4b7c-856c-6272d4386c75) *Su­dan Notes and Re­cords* 56 (1975): pp. 1–35. Bell, Herman. !["Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language.”](bib:9926e196-3eea-4b7c-856c-6272d4386c75) *Su­dan Notes and Re­cords* 56 (1975): pp. 1–35.
Browne, Gerald M. ![*Old Nubian Dictionary.*](bib:d9505774-ee71-4ab7-b076-96f26507ca47) Leuven: Pee­ters, 1996. Browne, Gerald M. ![*Old Nubian Dictionary.*](bib:d9505774-ee71-4ab7-b076-96f26507ca47) Leuven: Pee­ters, 1996.
Greenberg, Joseph H. ![*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:df1c2298-341c-4367-a9cf-37452f7e3068) Bloo­mington: Indiana University Press, 1966. Greenberg, Joseph H. ![*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:df1c2298-341c-4367-a9cf-37452f7e3068) Bloo­mington: Indiana University Press, 1966.
Güldemann, Tom. !["Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa."](bib:71baea9a-2918-4b8e-afc4-cbcaa229ffba) In *The Languages and Linguistics of Africa,* edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444. Güldemann, Tom. !["Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa.”](bib:71baea9a-2918-4b8e-afc4-cbcaa229ffba) In *The Languages and Linguistics of Africa,* edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. !["Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages."](bib:98d3ffa7-f296-42a4-9abf-7352a8771a21) In *Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 393–411. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. !["Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.”](bib:98d3ffa7-f296-42a4-9abf-7352a8771a21) In *Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 393–411.
Hofmann, Inge. ![*Material für eine meroitische Grammatik.*](bib:e14847bd-2562-46d2-9fe4-05a8b266a1d7) Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 16. Vienna: Afro-Pub, 1981. Hofmann, Inge. ![*Material für eine meroitische Grammatik.*](bib:e14847bd-2562-46d2-9fe4-05a8b266a1d7) Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 16. Vienna: Afro-Pub, 1981.
Hofmann, Inge. ![*Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis: Nu­bisch-­deutsches und deutsch-nubisches Wörterverzeichnis nach dem Kenzi-Ma­te­ri­al des Samuêl Alî Hisên (1863–1927).*](bib:2dd02093-a526-4771-b25b-e936e163e9bc) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1986. Hofmann, Inge. ![*Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis: Nu­bisch-­deutsches und deutsch-nubisches Wörterverzeichnis nach dem Kenzi-Ma­te­ri­al des Samuêl Alî Hisên (1863–1927).*](bib:2dd02093-a526-4771-b25b-e936e163e9bc) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1986.
Jakobi, Angelika. !["The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nu­bian Consonants."](bib:536c8580-b91c-4fce-ae39-b8d643e30a65) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Cul­ture,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdi­ger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228. Jakobi, Angelika. !["The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nu­bian Consonants.”](bib:536c8580-b91c-4fce-ae39-b8d643e30a65) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Cul­ture,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdi­ger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228.
Kassian, Alexei. !["Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus): Testing Various Phylogenetic Methods on Lexical Data."](bib:0511c96c-dcb5-459e-8b22-d6622d56acde) *PLoS ONE* 10, no. 2 (2015). [doi]({sc}): [10.1371/journal.pone.0116950](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116950). Kassian, Alexei. !["Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus): Testing Various Phylogenetic Methods on Lexical Data.”](bib:0511c96c-dcb5-459e-8b22-d6622d56acde) *PLoS ONE* 10, no. 2 (2015). [doi]({sc}): [10.1371/journal.pone.0116950](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116950).
Kauczor, P. Daniel. ![*Die Bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Ge­bel Deleṅ).*](bib:712b717f-39e9-42a9-9a87-67de1adfba08) Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920. Kauczor, P. Daniel. ![*Die Bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Ge­bel Deleṅ).*](bib:712b717f-39e9-42a9-9a87-67de1adfba08) Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920.
@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ Krell, Amy. ![*Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali
Lepsius, C. Richard. ![*Nubische Grammatik. Mit einer Einleitung über die Völker und Sprachen Afrikas.*](bib:828d8bd7-c62e-4808-a342-b7a6ca3d8b0d) Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1880. Lepsius, C. Richard. ![*Nubische Grammatik. Mit einer Einleitung über die Völker und Sprachen Afrikas.*](bib:828d8bd7-c62e-4808-a342-b7a6ca3d8b0d) Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1880.
Rilly, Claude. !["Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan."](bib:2b8a5bc9-e853-4b36-92d3-a3a37bf76903) In *The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies,* edited by Julie Renée Anderson and Derek A. Welsby. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 2014: pp. 1169–1188. Rilly, Claude. !["Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan.”](bib:2b8a5bc9-e853-4b36-92d3-a3a37bf76903) In *The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies,* edited by Julie Renée Anderson and Derek A. Welsby. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 2014: pp. 1169–1188.
Rilly, Claude. ![*Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*](bib:2ca95718-79e8-40cd-939a-5dd0e3bbd07e) Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Rilly, Claude. ![*Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*](bib:2ca95718-79e8-40cd-939a-5dd0e3bbd07e) Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ Souag, Lameen. ![*Grammatical Contact in the Sahara: Arabic, Berber, and Songhay
Starostin, George. ![*Языки Африки. Опыт построения лексикостатистической классификации. Том II: Восточносуданские языки*](bib:0ffcb0a8-a35f-40cf-b56f-b19ca2616ba6) [*Languages of Africa: An Attempt at a Lexicostatistical Classification, Vol. II: East Sudanic Languages*]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʼtury, 2014. Starostin, George. ![*Языки Африки. Опыт построения лексикостатистической классификации. Том II: Восточносуданские языки*](bib:0ffcb0a8-a35f-40cf-b56f-b19ca2616ba6) [*Languages of Africa: An Attempt at a Lexicostatistical Classification, Vol. II: East Sudanic Languages*]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʼtury, 2014.
Thelwall, Robin. !["A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju."](bib:9ed84dac-bac2-4595-93ef-86cd0ea9b735) In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigall 1874–1974,* edited by Herbert Gansl­mayr and Hermann Jungraithmayr. Bremen: Übersee-Museum, 1977: pp. 197–210. Thelwall, Robin. !["A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.”](bib:9ed84dac-bac2-4595-93ef-86cd0ea9b735) In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigall 1874–1974,* edited by Herbert Gansl­mayr and Hermann Jungraithmayr. Bremen: Übersee-Museum, 1977: pp. 197–210.
Thelwall, Robin. ![“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.”](bib:63cb7f06-ce5d-4ff3-9de0-93e92ae3f36a) In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286. Thelwall, Robin. ![“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.”](bib:63cb7f06-ce5d-4ff3-9de0-93e92ae3f36a) In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286.

76
content/issue/dotawo7.md
View file

@ -10,16 +10,16 @@ has_articles: ["rilly.md", "norton.md", "jakobi.md", "starostin.md", "blench.md"
Since its inception, the [Union for Nubian Studies](http://unionfornubianstudies.org/) has been committed to opening up Nubiological research to a wider audience and broadening access to source materials. *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* was launched in 2014 as an open-access journal, with free access for both authors and readers. It has been hosted by [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/) of Fairfield University and since 2019 by University of California's [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo) platform. Since its inception, the [Union for Nubian Studies](http://unionfornubianstudies.org/) has been committed to opening up Nubiological research to a wider audience and broadening access to source materials. *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* was launched in 2014 as an open-access journal, with free access for both authors and readers. It has been hosted by [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/) of Fairfield University and since 2019 by University of California's [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo) platform.
Both digital platforms allowed *Dotawo* to grow, expanding its reach by means of the creation of persistent digital identifiers and membership of the [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/toc/2373-2571). The content of *Dotawo,* however, remained essentially tailored to human – rather than machine – readers because it was only available in PDF or printed form, and to privileged readers with access to institutional libraries because the references it included were often difficult to access for members of the public without such access, even though most if not all of this research was produced with the aid of public funds. This state of affairs presented a challenge in terms of the discoverability of the journal and the long-term preservation and openness of the scholarship presented and referenced. Both digital platforms allowed *Dotawo* to grow, expanding its reach by means of the creation of persistent digital identifiers and membership of the [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/toc/2373-2571). The content of *Dotawo,* however, remained essentially tailored to human — rather than machine — readers because it was only available in PDF or printed form, and to privileged readers with access to institutional libraries because the references it included were often difficult to access for members of the public without such access, even though most if not all of this research was produced with the aid of public funds. This state of affairs presented a challenge in terms of the accessibility and discoverability of the journal as well as the long-term preservation and openness of the scholarship presented and referenced.
Starting with the present issue, *Dotawo* will design and publish its content via the [Sandpoints](https://git.sandpoints.org/UnionForNubianStudies/Dotawo) platform, developed by Marcell Mars. *Dotawo* contributions are formatted in [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) syntax, thus moving away from proprietary software such as Microsoft Word and Adobe InDesign. For collaboration and version-control we employ [Git](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git) rather than Google Drive or Dropbox. The online issue is created via [Gitea](https://gitea.io/en-us/) and [Hugo](https://gohugo.io/), which take the Markdown files from the Git repository and generate a static website from them. The result is a compact and fast website, which moreover can also be used offline. Also the typography of *Dotawo* is now based on open fonts. The journal is typeset in [Gentium](https://software.sil.org/gentium/), which is released under an [SIL Open Font License](http://scripts.sil.org/ofl). The PDF output is generated by [PagedJS](https://www.pagedjs.org/), and will continue to be hosted on the eScholarship platform, while the printed book will remain available through scholar-led open access press [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/imprints/dotawo/). In short, all of the software used in the creation of *Dotawo* will thus be open source. Although this process demands a certain amount of flexibility of the editors, it also shows that transitioning an open access journal to open infrastructure not only possible but also feasible. Starting with the present issue, *Dotawo* will design and publish its content via the [Sandpoints](https://git.sandpoints.org/UnionForNubianStudies/Dotawo) platform. *Dotawo* contributions are formatted in [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) syntax, thus moving away from proprietary software such as Microsoft Word and Adobe InDesign. For collaboration and version-control we employ [Git](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git) rather than Google Drive or Dropbox. The online issue is created via [Gitea](https://gitea.io/en-us/) and [Hugo](https://gohugo.io/), which take the Markdown files from the Git repository and generate a static website from them. The result is a compact and fast website, which moreover can also be used offline. Also the typography of *Dotawo* is now based on open fonts. The journal is typeset in [Gentium](https://software.sil.org/gentium/), which is released under an [SIL Open Font License](http://scripts.sil.org/ofl). The PDF output is generated by [PagedJS](https://www.pagedjs.org/), and will continue to be hosted on the eScholarship platform, while the printed book will remain available through scholar-led open access press [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/imprints/dotawo/). In short, all of the software used in the creation of *Dotawo* is now open source. Although this process demands a certain amount of flexibility of the editors, it also shows that transitioning an open access journal to open infrastructure is not only possible but also feasible.
The plundering and destruction of the University of Khartoum by forces allied with the former dictator during the 2019 Sudanese Revolution[^8] has once again impressed upon us the precarity of the research environment in which many scholars of Nubia operate and thus the necessity and moral obligation of creating open and resistant scholarly infrastructures. To improve the long-term preservation of and access to the scholarship contained and referenced in *Dotawo*, all sources mentioned in contributions to the journal will henceforth be linked, as much as possible, to records deposited in a public library using the open infrastructure of [Memory of the World](https://www.memoryoftheworld.org/).[^10] This will allow for easy storage and dissemination of both content and contect of the research presented in *Dotawo* to those scholars of Nubia – and there are many – who are not institutionally privileged, including many who live in the Global South. The plundering and destruction of the University of Khartoum by forces allied with the former dictator during the 2019 Sudanese Revolution[^8] has once again impressed upon us the precarity of the research environment in which many scholars of Nubia operate and thus the necessity and moral obligation of creating open and resistant scholarly infrastructures. To improve the long-term preservation of and access to the scholarship contained and referenced in *Dotawo*, all sources mentioned in contributions to the journal will henceforth be linked, as much as possible, to records deposited in a public library using the open infrastructure of [Memory of the World](https://www.memoryoftheworld.org/).[^10] This will allow for easy storage and dissemination of both content and context of the research presented in *Dotawo* to those scholars of Nubia — and there are many — who are not institutionally privileged, including many who live in the Global South.
A recent, bleak assessment of the goals set by the [Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) Declaration](https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) in 2002, and the open access movement more broadly, by Richard Poynder states that "it now seems unlikely that the *affordability* and *equity* problems will be resolved, which will impact disproportionately negatively on those in the Global South”:[^5] A recent, bleak assessment by Richard Poynder of the goals set by the [Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) Declaration](https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) in 2002, and the open access movement more broadly, states that "it now seems unlikely that the *affordability* and *equity* problems will be resolved, which will impact disproportionately negatively on those in the Global South”:[^5]
>OA advocates failed to anticipate – and then for too long ignored – how their advocacy was allowing legacy publishers to co-opt open access, and in ways that work as much against the goals of BOAI as for them. And they have often downplayed the negative consequences that OA policies and initiatives developed in the Global North will have for those in the Global South.[^6] >OA advocates failed to anticipate — and then for too long ignored — how their advocacy was allowing legacy publishers to co-opt open access, and in ways that work as much against the goals of BOAI as for them. And they have often downplayed the negative consequences that OA policies and initiatives developed in the Global North will have for those in the Global South.[^6]
Furthermore, it appears that the turn toward open access in the scholarly communications landscape is increasingly facilitating the agendas of an oligopoly of for-profit data analytics companies. Perhaps realizing that "they've found something that is even more profitable than selling back to us academics the content that we have produced,”[^9] they venture ever further up the research stream, with every intent to colonize and canalize its entire flow.[^4] This poses a severe threat to the independence and quality of scholarly inquiry.[^7] Furthermore, it appears that the turn toward open access in the scholarly communications landscape is increasingly facilitating the agendas of an oligopoly of for-profit data analytics companies. Perhaps realizing that "they've found something that is even more profitable than selling back to us academics the content that we have produced,”[^9] they venture ever further up the research stream, with every intent to colonize and canalize its entire flow.[^4] This poses a severe threat to the independence and quality of scholarly inquiry.[^7]
@ -27,20 +27,20 @@ In the light of these troubling developments, the expansion from *Dotawo* as a "
>Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world.[^3] >Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world.[^3]
Swartz's is a call to action that transcends the limitations of the open access movement as construed by the BOAI Declaration by plainly affirming that knowledge is a common good. His call goes beyond open access, because it specifically targets materials that linger on a paper or silicon substrate in academic libraries and digital repositories without being accessible to "fair use." The deposition of the references from *Dotawo* contributions in a public library is a first and limited attempt to offer a remedy, heeding the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use" of the [Association of Research Libraries](https://www.arl.org/resources/code-of-best-practices-in-fair-use-designing-the-public-domain/), which approvingly cites the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that “the noblest of human productions — knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas — become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.”[^1] This approach also dovetails the interpretation of "folk law" recently propounded by Kenneth Goldsmith, the founder of public library [Ubuweb](https://ubu.com/).[^2] Swartz's is a call to action that transcends the limitations of the open access movement as construed by the BOAI Declaration by plainly affirming that knowledge is a common good. His call goes beyond open access, because it specifically targets materials that linger on a paper or silicon substrate in academic libraries and digital repositories without being accessible to "fair use.” The deposition of the references from *Dotawo* contributions in a public library is a first and limited attempt to offer a remedy, heeding the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use" of the [Association of Research Libraries](https://www.arl.org/resources/code-of-best-practices-in-fair-use-designing-the-public-domain/), which approvingly cites the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that “the noblest of human productions — knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas — become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.”[^1] This approach also dovetails the interpretation of "folk law" recently propounded by Kenneth Goldsmith, the founder of public library [Ubuweb](https://ubu.com/).[^2]
I strongly believe that it is in the interest of Nubian Studies and its stakeholders, especially scholars in adjunct or para-academic positions without access to institutional repositories, and the Nubian people who are actively denied knowledge of their own culture, to enable the *widest possible* dissemination of scholarship. In this enterprise, striving for common access and relying on open source software are merely a first step. I strongly believe that it is in the interest of Nubian Studies and its stakeholders, especially scholars in adjunct or para-academic positions without access to institutional repositories, and the Nubian people who are actively denied knowledge of their own culture, to enable the *widest possible* dissemination of scholarship. In this enterprise, striving for common access and relying on open source software are merely a first step.
[^1]: *Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press,* 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), cited in Anon., "Designing the Public Domain," p. 1494. [^1]: *Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press,* 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), cited in Anon., "Designing the Public Domain,” p. 1494.
[^2]: Goldsmith, *Duchamp Is My Lawyer.* [^2]: Goldsmith, *Duchamp Is My Lawyer.*
[^3]: Swartz, "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto." [^3]: Swartz, "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto.”
[^4]: See, e.g., Moore, "The Datafication in Transformative Agreements for Open Access Publishing." [^4]: See, e.g., Moore, "The Datafication in Transformative Agreements for Open Access Publishing.”
[^5]: Poynder, "Open access: 'Information wants to be free'?" p. 2. [^5]: Poynder, "Open access: 'Information wants to be free'?" p. 2.
[^6]: Ibid., p. 22. [^6]: Ibid., p. 22.
[^7]: The reduction in agency of academics as a result of the implementation of open access schemes has been widely recognized. As Christopher Kelty put it succinctly: "OA has come to exist and scholarship is more available and more widely distributed than ever before. But, scholars now have less control, and have taken less responsibility for the means of production of scientific research, its circulation, and perhaps even the content of that science" ("Recursive Publics and Open Access," p. 7). These problems are exacerbated in the Global South, as the financial models for OA funding developed in the Global North threaten local public infrastructures managed by academics (Aguado-López & Becerril-Garcia, "The Commercial Model of Academic Publishing Underscoring Plan S Weakens the Existing Open Access Ecosystem in Latin America"). [^7]: The reduction in agency of academics as a result of the implementation of open access schemes has been widely recognized. As Christopher Kelty put it succinctly: "OA has come to exist and scholarship is more available and more widely distributed than ever before. But, scholars now have less control, and have taken less responsibility for the means of production of scientific research, its circulation, and perhaps even the content of that science" ("Recursive Publics and Open Access,” p. 7). These problems are exacerbated in the Global South, as the financial models for OA funding developed in the Global North threaten local public infrastructures managed by academics (Aguado-López & Becerril-Garcia, "The Commercial Model of Academic Publishing Underscoring Plan S Weakens the Existing Open Access Ecosystem in Latin America").
[^8]: "Report: Large Parts of University of Khartoum Destroyed on June 3." [^8]: "Report: Large Parts of University of Khartoum Destroyed on June 3.”
[^9]: Bodó, "Own Nothing," p. 23. [^9]: Bodó, "Own Nothing,” p. 23.
[^10]: A public library is defined as follows: "[A] public library is: free access to books for every member of society; library catalog; librarian" (Mars, Zarroug & Medak, "Public Library," p. 85). [^10]: A public library is defined as follows: "[A] public library is: free access to books for every member of society; library catalog; librarian" (Mars, Zarroug & Medak, "Public Library,” p. 85).
## About This Issue ## About This Issue
@ -58,9 +58,9 @@ Although the contours of NES are relatively well established, much of the detail
### The Coherence of Nile Nubian ### The Coherence of Nile Nubian
Robin Thelwall proposed that the apparent proximity between Nile Nubian languages Nobiin and Mattokki–Andaandi was not the result of their belonging to the same branch within the Nubian language family, but due to prolonged language contact.[^a4] In other words, he proposed that there was no such thing as "Nile Nubian." This proposal was further developed by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst using lexico-statistical methods.[^a5] Robin Thelwall proposed that the apparent proximity between Nile Nubian languages Nobiin and Mattokki–Andaandi was not the result of their belonging to the same branch within the Nubian language family, but due to prolonged language contact.[^a4] In other words, he proposed that there was no such thing as "Nile Nubian.” This proposal was further developed by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst using lexicostatistical methods.[^a5]
Based on comparative NES phonology, Claude Rilly concluded on the contrary that Nobiin and Mattokki-Andaandi were closely related, and that the divergence between the two in terms of vocabulary was due to the influence of a substrate language underneath Nobiin.[^a6] Rilly's arguments are supported independently by lexico-statistical evidence presented by George Starostin in his contribution ["Restoring 'Nile Nubian': How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages.”](article:starostin.md) Angelika Jakobi's ["Nubian Verb Extensions and Some Nyima Correspondences”](article:jakobi.md) provides further morphological evidence for the coherence of Nile Nubian.[^a10] Based on comparative NES phonology, Claude Rilly concluded on the contrary that Nobiin and Mattokki–Andaandi were closely related, and that the divergence between the two in terms of vocabulary was due to the influence of a substrate language underneath Nobiin.[^a6] Rilly's arguments are supported independently by lexicostatistical evidence presented by George Starostin in his contribution ["Restoring 'Nile Nubian': How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages.”](article:starostin.md) Angelika Jakobi's ["Nubian Verb Extensions and Some Nyima Correspondences”](article:jakobi.md) provides further morphological evidence for the coherence of Nile Nubian.[^a10]
### The Inclusion of Nyima ### The Inclusion of Nyima
@ -72,51 +72,51 @@ Finally, the inclusion of Meroitic in NES has long been a point of contention ow
[^a1]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 130. [^a1]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 130.
[^a2]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1. [^a2]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1.
[^a4]: Thelwall, "Linguistic Aspects of a Greater Nubian History," pp. 47–48. [^a4]: Thelwall, "Linguistic Aspects of a Greater Nubian History,” pp. 47–48.
[^a5]: See, in particular, Bechhaus-Gerst, "'Nile Nubian' Reconsidered." [^a5]: See, in particular, Bechhaus-Gerst, "'Nile Nubian' Reconsidered.”
[^a6]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 274–288. [^a6]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 274–288.
[^a7]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 181–183; Dimmendaal, "Nilo-Saharan," p. 593. [^a7]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 181–183; Dimmendaal, "Nilo-Saharan,” p. 593.
[^a8]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* p. 88. Ehret refers to NES as "Astaboran." [^a8]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* p. 88. Ehret refers to NES as "Astaboran.”
[^a9]: See, for an overview, Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 25–36. [^a9]: See, for an overview, Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 25–36.
[^a10]: Perhaps it is now time for [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251) to update its entry on Nubian. [^a10]: Perhaps it is now time for [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251) to update its entry on Nubian.
[^a11]: Dimmendaal, "Nilo-Saharan," p. 593. [^a11]: Dimmendaal, "Nilo-Saharan,” p. 593.
[^a12]: See, for a recent overview, Güldemann, "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa," pp. 299–309. [^a12]: See, for a recent overview, Güldemann, "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa,” pp. 299–309.
# Bibliography # Bibliography
Aguado-López, Eduardo & Arianna Becerril-Garcia, "The Commercial Model of Academic Publishing Underscoring Plan S Weakens the Existing Open Access Ecosystem in Latin America." *LSE Impact Blog,* May 20, 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/05/20/the-commercial-model-of-academic-publishing-underscoring-plan-s-weakens-the-existing-open-access-ecosystem-in-latin-america/. Aguado-López, Eduardo & Arianna Becerril-Garcia, "The Commercial Model of Academic Publishing Underscoring Plan S Weakens the Existing Open Access Ecosystem in Latin America.” *LSE Impact Blog,* May 20, 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/05/20/the-commercial-model-of-academic-publishing-underscoring-plan-s-weakens-the-existing-open-access-ecosystem-in-latin-america/.
Anon. "Designing the Public Domain." *Harvard Law Review* 122, no. 5 (2009): pp. 1489–1510. Anon. !["Designing the Public Domain.”](bib:4e7383bf-d59e-4884-a5d7-7bed70d71290) *Harvard Law Review* 122, no. 5 (2009): pp. 1489–1510.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. "‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered." In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lio­nel Be­n­der. Ham­burg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. !["‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered.”](bib:c17c58a0-0137-4db8-9f52-5d40e2acffa4) In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lio­nel Be­n­der. Ham­burg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96.
Bender, Lionel M. *The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.* Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005. Bender, Lionel M. ![*The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.*](bib:451c9cbd-baec-4d48-a568-aee6736ae290) Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005.
Bodó, Balázs. "Own Nothing." In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 16–24. Bodó, Balázs. !["Own Nothing.”](bib:2bb209af-f602-4d9f-9e85-64bf680a9661) In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 16–24.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology,* edited by Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: pp. 591–607. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Nilo-Saharan.”](bib:5776b1b1-022a-45c0-9560-bdc8859dd74b) In *The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology,* edited by Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: pp. 591–607.
Ehret, Christopher. *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan.* Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001. Ehret, Christopher. ![*A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan.*](bib:cf0fc6eb-0e34-4dee-8902-c553e8aaa0ee) Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001.
Goldsmith, Kenneth. *Duchamp Is My Lawyer: The Polemics, Pragmatics, and Poetics of Ubuweb.* New York: Columbia University Press, 2020. Goldsmith, Kenneth. ![*Duchamp Is My Lawyer: The Polemics, Pragmatics, and Poetics of Ubuweb.*](bib:5a73dbe3-2192-4496-9574-8d6a84cc71b3) New York: Columbia University Press, 2020.
Greenberg, Joseph H. *The Languages of Africa.* The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1963. Greenberg, Joseph H. ![*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:a107ca3b-6b11-49b2-bed3-9b246c811eec) The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1963.
Güldemann, Tom. "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa." In *The Languages and Linguistics of Africa,* edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444. Güldemann, Tom. !["Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa.”](bib:e5dbfdd7-93b5-4b66-9513-92403370363d) In *The Languages and Linguistics of Africa,* edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444.
Kelty, Christopher. "Recursive Publics and Open Access." In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 6–15. Kelty, Christopher. !["Recursive Publics and Open Access.”](bib:8d18f630-9111-41ce-9d17-43e998ed9074) In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 6–15.
Mars, Marcell, Manar Zarroug, and Tomislav Medak. "Public Library." In *Javna knjižnica – Public Library,* edited by Marcell Mars, Tomislav Medak, and WHW. Zagreb: WHW/Multimedijalni Institut, 2015: pp. 75–85. Mars, Marcell, Manar Zarroug & Tomislav Medak. !["Public Library.”](bib:8bc32541-4d65-49a4-9dac-d8e109fd3ec6) In *Javna knjižnica – Public Library,* edited by Marcell Mars, Tomislav Medak, and WHW. Zagreb: WHW/Multimedijalni Institut, 2015: pp. 75–85.
Moore, Samuel. "The Datafication in Transformative Agreements for Open Access Publishing." July 3, 2020. https://www.samuelmoore.org/2020/07/03/the-datafication-in-transformative-agreements-for-open-access-publishing/ Moore, Samuel. !["The Datafication in Transformative Agreements for Open Access Publishing.”](bib:63cfa334-1986-4073-bf4e-78c4a3a05fe6) July 3, 2020. https://www.samuelmoore.org/2020/07/03/the-datafication-in-transformative-agreements-for-open-access-publishing/
"Report: Large Parts of University of Khartoum Destroyed on June 3." *Dabanga,* August 7, 2019. https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/report-large-parts-of-university-of-khartoum-destroyed-on-june-3. !["Report: Large Parts of University of Khartoum Destroyed on June 3.”](bib:c488659d-f9d3-4e24-a1cf-333e6f6cd6d3) *Dabanga,* August 7, 2019. https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/report-large-parts-of-university-of-khartoum-destroyed-on-june-3.
Rilly, Claude. *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Rilly, Claude. ![*Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*](bib:c191b60d-ae64-4eee-9c72-e71b7ae987b5) Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Swartz, Aaron. "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto." July 2008. https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/page/n1/mode/2up. Swartz, Aaron. !["Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto.”](bib:5c018728-5ffc-4a43-84c7-dae88e1b81d9) July 2008. https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/page/n1/mode/2up.
Thelwall, Robin. "Linguistic Aspects of Greater Nubian History." In *The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History,* edited by Christopher Ehret and Merrick Posnansky, pp. 39–56. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Thelwall, Robin. !["Linguistic Aspects of Greater Nubian History.”](bib:c1df2a82-ba52-4588-acda-1086e2dc3bcf) In *The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History,* edited by Christopher Ehret and Merrick Posnansky, pp. 39–56. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.