all corrections done
This commit is contained in:
parent
d03f4da272
commit
992a943fd3
7 changed files with 446 additions and 433 deletions
|
|
@ -191,11 +191,11 @@ 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]
|
||||
|
||||
[^302]: Greenberg, “Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article."
|
||||
[^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* 176, 181.
|
||||
[^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* 75.
|
||||
[^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* pp. 176, 181.
|
||||
[^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* p. 75.
|
||||
[^305]: Ibid.
|
||||
[^306]: Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* 22-24.
|
||||
[^307]: Storch, *The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic,* 46.
|
||||
[^306]: Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* pp. 22–24.
|
||||
[^307]: Storch, *The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic,* p. 46.
|
||||
[^308]: See Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages* and the 2020 edition of [*Ethnologue*](https://www.ethnologue.com/).
|
||||
|
||||
# Individual Branches
|
||||
|
|
@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ In conclusion, East Sudanic is characterized by a series of affixes, which have
|
|||
|
||||
# Bibliography
|
||||
|
||||
Alamin Mubarak, Suzan.  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 & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 9-24.
|
||||
Alamin Mubarak, Suzan.  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 & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 9–24.
|
||||
|
||||
Aviles, Arthur J.  MA Thesis, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks, 2008.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -730,39 +730,39 @@ Bell, Herman. : pp. 139-150.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 45 (1996): pp. 139–150.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  *Africa and Ubersee* 66, no. 2 (1983): pp. 259-297.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  *Africa and Ubersee* 66, no. 2 (1983): pp. 259–297.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 63 (2000): pp. 103-120.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 63 (2000): pp. 103–120.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 89-119.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 89–119.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  *Afrika und Übersee* 80 (1997): pp. 189-215.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  *Afrika und Übersee* 80 (1997): pp. 189–215.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  *Afrika und Übersee* 81 (1998): pp. 39-64.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  *Afrika und Übersee* 81 (1998): pp. 39–64.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M.  2nd edition. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997.
|
||||
|
||||
Blench, Roger M.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg and Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 485-500.
|
||||
Blench, Roger M.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg and Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 485–500.
|
||||
|
||||
Blench, Roger M.  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.  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.  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.  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.  Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
|
||||
|
||||
Bryan, Margaret.  *Africa* 29, no. 1 (1959): pp. 1-21.
|
||||
Bryan, Margaret.  *Africa* 29, no. 1 (1959): pp. 1–21.
|
||||
|
||||
Carlin, Eithne.  Cologne: Universität zu Köln, 1993.
|
||||
|
||||
Cohen, Kevin B.  Munich: Lincom Europa, 2000.
|
||||
|
||||
Dawd, Abushush & R.J. Hayward.  *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* 32, no. 2 (2002): pp. 249-255.
|
||||
Dawd, Abushush & R.J. Hayward.  *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* 32, no. 2 (2002): pp. 249–255.
|
||||
|
||||
De Voogt, A.J.  *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. [doi]({sc}): [10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev).
|
||||
De Voogt, Alex  *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. [doi]({sc}): [10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev).
|
||||
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.  *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 31 (2011): pp. 13–46.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -772,23 +772,23 @@ Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Hi
|
|||
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.  *Anthropological Linguistics* 42, no. 2 (2000): pp. 214–261.
|
||||
|
||||
Edgar, John T.  In *Proceedings of the Fourth Nilo-Saharan Conference: Bayreuth Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1989,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1991: pp. 111-131.
|
||||
Edgar, John T.  In *Proceedings of the Fourth Nilo-Saharan Conference: Bayreuth Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1989,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1991: pp. 111–131.
|
||||
|
||||
Ehret, Christopher.  Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001.
|
||||
|
||||
Ehret, Christopher.  Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971.
|
||||
|
||||
Gilley, Leoma G.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501-522.
|
||||
Gilley, Leoma G.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522.
|
||||
|
||||
Greenberg, Joseph H.  *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 3, no. 2 (1981): pp. 105-112.
|
||||
Greenberg, Joseph H.  *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 3, no. 2 (1981): pp. 105–112.
|
||||
|
||||
Greenberg, Joseph H.  *Southwestern Journal of Anthropology* 6, no. 2 (1950): pp. 143-160.
|
||||
Greenberg, Joseph H.  *Southwestern Journal of Anthropology* 6, no. 2 (1950): pp. 143–160.
|
||||
|
||||
Greenberg, Joseph H.  The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1963.
|
||||
|
||||
Güldemann, Tom. “The Historical-Comparative Status of East Sudanic.” In *Proceedings of the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium,* edited by Roger M. Blench, Petra Weschenfelder, and Georg Ziegelmeyer. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, forthcoming.
|
||||
|
||||
Hayward, Richard J.  In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 247-267.
|
||||
Hayward, Richard J.  In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 247–267.
|
||||
|
||||
Heine, Bernd.  Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1976.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ Lamberti, Marcello. ![*Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study.*](bib:5e8f9f20-
|
|||
|
||||
Norton, Russell. "Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective." *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): 
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell.  *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75-94.
|
||||
Norton, Russell.  *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–94.
|
||||
|
||||
Rilly, Claude.  Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -816,17 +816,17 @@ Schrock, Terrill B.  *Journal of Language Relationship* [*Вопросы языкового родства*] 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73-84, 93-115.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27-65, 117-152, 171-196.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
|
||||
|
||||
Stirtz, Timothy M.  Utrecht: LOT, 2011.
|
||||
|
||||
Storch, Anne.  Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2005.
|
||||
|
||||
Thelwall, Robin A.  In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigal 1874–1974,* edited by E. Ganslmayr and H. Jungraithmayr, pp. 197-210. Bremen: Übersee Museum, 1977.
|
||||
Thelwall, Robin A.  In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigal 1874–1974,* edited by E. Ganslmayr and H. Jungraithmayr, pp. 197–210. Bremen: Übersee Museum, 1977.
|
||||
|
||||
Trigger, Bruce G. “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship.” *Kush* 12 (1964): 188-194.
|
||||
Trigger, Bruce G. “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship.” *Kush* 12 (1964): 188–194.
|
||||
|
||||
Tucker, Archibald N.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -842,6 +842,6 @@ Voßen, Rainer.  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.  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.  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.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ keywords: ["Nubian", "comparative linguistics", "Nyima", "Northern East Sudanic"
|
|||
Since Greenberg’s classification of the African languages there is agreement that the Nubian languages belong to East Sudanic, the largest subgroup of the Nilo-Saharan phylum.[^1] According to Bender, Dimmendaal, and Blench, East Sudanic (also known as Eastern Sudanic) is divided into a northern and a southern branch.[^2] The northern branch comprises Nubian as well as the Taman languages of Darfur and Wadai, the Nyima languages[^5] of the Nuba Mountains, and Nara on the Sudan–Eritrean border. Rilly, in his historical-comparative study, argues that the extinct language of the Meroitic Empire is also part of the northern branch.[^6] The southern branch consists of Berta, Jebel, Daju, Temeinian, Surmic, and Nilotic.[^7] This subclassification is, however, disputed. Ehret and Starostin, for instance, suggest that Ama (referred to by the term Nyimang) is genetically closer to Temeinian and hence part of the southern – rather than the northern – branch of East Sudanic.[^8]
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: This paper is partly based on data drawn from published sources, partly collected in collaboration with mother tongue speakers. I am deeply indebted to the unflagging commitment of El-Shafie El-Guzuuli who contributed examples of Andaandi, to Ali Ibrahim of Tagle, Ahmed Hamdan of Karko, and Ishaag Hassan of Midob. Isaameddiin Hasan provided advice on Nobiin.
|
||||
[^2]: Bender, The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay; Bender, “Nilo-Saharan"; Dimmendaal, “Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk Diaspora”; .
|
||||
[^2]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay*; Bender, “Nilo-Saharan”; Dimmendaal, “Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk Diaspora”; .
|
||||
[^5]: In the present paper I will use the term Nyima to refer to the language group comprising Ama, Mandal, and Afitti. Afitti is also known as Dinik (Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”).
|
||||
[^6]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*
|
||||
[^7]: For a recent sub-classification of East Sudanic, see Dimmendaal et al., “Linguistic Features and Typologies in Languages Commonly Referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’.”
|
||||
|
|
@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ According to Rilly, the Nubian language family has two main branches, Nile Nubia
|
|||
|
||||
[^fig1]: Adapted from Rilly, “The Linguistic Position of Meroitic.”
|
||||
|
||||
**Map** below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyima group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan.
|
||||
**Map 1** below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyima group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Probably due to frequent contact between speakers of Nyima and speakers of Kordo
|
|||
|
||||
**~~Table 1. Ama – Mandal – PKN correspondences[^16]~~**
|
||||
|
||||
[^16]: For the purpose of clarity, the different spelling conventions adopted for writing the various modern Nubian languages in the Latin script have been unified in this paper. Thus, the following digraphs are replaced by single IPA symbols: *sh → ʃ*; *ch → c*; *ny → ɲ*; and *ng → ŋ.* Consonantal characters with diacritics are replaced as follows, *š → ʃ*; *ğ, ǵ → j*; *ń, ñ → ɲ*; *ṅ > ŋ.* The IPA symbol *ɟ,* however, is replaced by *j.* Long vowels are rendered by two identical vowel symbols, e.g., *ii,* rather than by a vowel plus colon (e.g., *i:*) or a vowel with a macron (e.g., *ī*). To facilitate the comparison of the language data from different sources, alveolar stops are rendered by *t* and *d*; the corresponding dentals being represented by *t̪* and *d̪*.
|
||||
[^16]: For the purpose of clarity, the different spelling conventions adopted for writing the various modern Nubian languages in the Latin script have been unified in this paper. Thus, the following digraphs are replaced by single IPA symbols: *sh → ʃ*; *ch → c*; *ny → ɲ*; and *ng → ŋ.* Consonantal characters with diacritics are replaced as follows, *š → ʃ*; *ğ, ǵ → j*; *ń, ñ → ɲ*; *ṅ → ŋ.* The IPA symbol *ɟ,* however, is replaced by *j.* Long vowels are rendered by two identical vowel symbols, e.g., *ii,* rather than by a vowel plus colon (e.g., *i:*) or a vowel with a macron (e.g., *ī*). To facilitate the comparison of the language data from different sources, alveolar stops are rendered by *t* and *d*; the corresponding dentals being represented by *t̪* and *d̪*.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples of the close sound and meaning correspondences between Afitti and Proto-Kordofan Nubian are shown in **Table 2.** Even though a specific Kordofan Nubian variety cannot be identified as the donor language, the obvious phonetic resemblances suggest that the lexical items in Afitti originate from a Kordofan Nubian, rather than from a Nile Nubian language.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -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.
|
||||
|
||||
However, the correspondences between the verb extensions in Nubian and Ama (**Table 3**) which are the focus of this paper, suggest a different historical interpretation, namely as evidence of their remote genetic relationship. This assumption, which will be corroborated in detail below, is based on the correspondences between the Proto-Nubian causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix, which is comparable to the Ama causative *a*-prefix, and the Proto-Nubian causative suffix *\*-(i)g-ir,* corresponding to the Ama directional/causative suffix *-ɪg ~ -ɛg.* In addition, there are two pairs of phonetically and semantically very similar verb extensions, which have a limited distribution in the Nubian group. They comprise the Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *-in* vs. the Ama dual *-ɪn,* as well as Midob *-íd* vs. Ama *-ɪ́d̪.* Another set of corresponding extensions (not shown in Table 3) includes the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural *-er* as well as the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object suffix *-ir* or *-(i)r-ir* and the Ama distributional suffix *-r.*
|
||||
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 | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ According to Dimmendaal, “[v]erbal derivation in the Nilo-Saharan languages co
|
|||
|
||||
[^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) and [3.4](#34)), 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 the two “give” 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, as 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)).
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Ama, too, has a rather rich inventory of derivational extensions.[^32] It has su
|
|||
|
||||
The Ama data are drawn from Stevenson’s survey of the Nuba Mountain languages, Tucker & Bryan’s grammar sketch of the Nyima group, which is based on Stevenson’s fieldwork data, and additional work by Rottland, Jakobi, Stevenson, and Norton.[^33]
|
||||
|
||||
[^33]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages"; Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* pp. 243-252; Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains"; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik”; .
|
||||
[^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”; .
|
||||
|
||||
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]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ 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]
|
||||
|
||||
[^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* ex. ??? (gr 2.4).
|
||||
[^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* ex. ??? (gr 2.4). [CHECK]
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(7)" >}}
|
||||
{r} ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲟⲛⲱ ϣⲟⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗⲓⲣⲉⲥⲟ
|
||||
|
|
@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ The Nobiin *-(i)r*-extension can derive transitive and ditransitive stems when i
|
|||
|
||||
Werner does not comment on Lepsius’s data, nor does he provide evidence in his Nobiin grammar of such derived transitive and ditransitive verbs. However, his verb paradigms indicate that – unlike transitive verbs – intransitive verbs never take the *-(i)r*-extension in their unmarked [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms.[^45] The absence of *-(i)r* is, no doubt, due to the original restriction of *-(i)r* to transitive and ditransitive verbs.
|
||||
|
||||
[^45]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 220-273.
|
||||
[^45]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 220–273.
|
||||
|
||||
| | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ As in Mattokki, Andaandi *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* is attached to intransitive verb ba
|
|||
{r} “don’t lose the money”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] [1sg]({sc}) form. This morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], too, e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir → -ir-ri → ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension.
|
||||
Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] [1sg]({sc}) form. This morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], too, e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir > -ir-ri > ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension.
|
||||
|
||||
[^55]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2865 and §3718.
|
||||
[^56]: “Neutral” is a tentative term for a (non-preterite, non-negative) suffix which in previous studies has been called “present tense.” The term “imperfective” is probably more appropriate.
|
||||
|
|
@ -306,8 +306,8 @@ 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}) |
|
||||
| (44) | ùj-ír-ì | “put down, lay down!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ùj-èr-í | 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}) |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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).
|
||||
|
|
@ -342,12 +342,12 @@ In addition to deriving transitive from intransitive verbs, Midob *‑(i)r* can
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(49)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Midob**
|
||||
{g} on, [3sg]({sc})|taa, road|pacc-ihum,deviate-[prf.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *on*, [3sg]({sc})|*taa*, road|*pacc-ihum*,deviate-[prf.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “s/he deviated from the road”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(50)" >}}
|
||||
{g} on,[3sg]({sc})|naa,[3sg.acc]({sc})|taa,road|pacc-ir-hum,deviate-[caus-prf.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *on*,[3sg]({sc})|*naa*,[3sg.acc]({sc})|*taa*,road|*pacc-ir-hum*,deviate-[caus-prf.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “s/he made him deviate from the road”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ As suggested by the voiced or voiceless velar stop, [g] or [k] and the close pho
|
|||
|
||||
| PN | ON | No | Ma | An | Dil | Ta | Ka | Mi |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| *‑(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 |
|
||||
|
||||
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]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ The following examples from Browne’s dictionary show that it derives transitiv
|
|||
|
||||
[^66]: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* pp. 81, 124, 152.
|
||||
|
||||
| | ON | | | |
|
||||
| | Old Nubian | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (51) | ⲟⲕ, ⲱⲕ, ⲟⲅ | “stand, be (over)” [itr]({sc}) |ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲁⲣ, ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ | “place over, attend” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (52) | ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ | “shine” [itr]({sc}) | ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ-ⲓⲅⲣ̄ | “reveal, illumine” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
|
@ -406,18 +406,18 @@ In the Nobiin variety documented by Werner, however, *kìr* is no longer part of
|
|||
|
||||
In addition to *‑kìr,* Nobiin exhibits the complex causative extension *‑in-kir.* The etymological origin of the component *‑in* is debatable. Is it the linker *‑(i)n-,* as Werner first assumed,[^73] or a cognate of the Old Nubian copula verb ⲉⲓⲛ (*in*), as he has recently proposed? Werner renders *‑in-kir* as “let be” or “let happen” which fits well the semantic association of *‑in-kir* with permission.[^74] By contrast, *‑kìr* connotes with causation. This semantic distinction is confirmed by the Nobiin mother tongue speaker Isaameddiin Hasan.[^75]
|
||||
|
||||
[^73]: Ibid., p. 179.
|
||||
[^73]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 179.
|
||||
[^74]: Werner, p.c., October 2020.
|
||||
[^75]: Isaameddiin Hasan, p.c., 2017.
|
||||
|
||||
In the following example the inflectional suffix *‑kiss* is due to anticipatory assimilation of the final consonant of *‑kir* to the [1sg]({sc}) preterite suffix *‑s.*
|
||||
The inflectional suffix *‑kiss* is due to anticipatory assimilation of the final consonant of *‑kir* to the preterite suffix *‑s.*
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(58)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *ày*,[1sg]({sc})|*tàk=kà*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*nàl-ìnkìss*,see-[caus.ind.pt.1sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “I caused him to see”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (← *‑gir-ri ← ‑gir-ir*), and *‑kiddi* (← *‑kir-ri ← ‑kir-ir*) derive transitive stems from intransitive bases and ditransitive stems from transitive bases.
|
||||
The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (< *‑gir-ri < ‑gir-ir*), and *‑kiddi* (< *‑kir-ri < ‑kir-ir*) derive transitive stems from intransitive bases and ditransitive stems from transitive bases.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Mattokki | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -427,10 +427,10 @@ The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (← *‑gir-ri
|
|||
|
||||
Here is a Mattokki example of *kuur* “learn” in a causative construction with two arguments, a [1sg]({sc}) causee and an assumed unexpressed pronominal patient.[^77]
|
||||
|
||||
[^77]: Ibid.
|
||||
[^77]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 132.
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(62)" >}}
|
||||
{g} ter,[3sg]({sc})|ai=g,[1sg=acc]({sc})|aa-kuur-kiddi-mun-um,[prog]({sc})-learn-[caus-neg-ind.pt.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *ter*,[3sg]({sc})|*ai=g*,[1sg=acc]({sc})|*aa-kuur-kiddi-mun-um*,[prog]({sc})-learn-[caus-neg-ind.pt.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “he did not teach [it] to me,” lit. “he did not make me learn [it]”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ The *‑(i)gir*-extension occurs on intransitive and transitive verb stems. It i
|
|||
| (64) | ulli | “kindle” | ull-igir | “cause or allow to kindle” |
|
||||
| (65) | jamm=ɛ | “come together, assemble” | |jamm=ɛ-gir | “cause or allow to come together, assemble” |
|
||||
|
||||
[^80]: *ɛɛʃ* belongs to the class of onomatopoeia or ideophones. They are not used as free forms but are turned into verbs by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar*, §§2870-2877.
|
||||
[^80]: *ɛɛʃ* belongs to the class of onomatopoeia or ideophones. They are not used as free forms but are turned into verbs by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar*, §§2870–2877.
|
||||
|
||||
Besides attaching to verbal bases, Andaandi *‑(i)gir* can attach to nominal bases, too. The resulting forms are transitive verb stems.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ Midob, too, has – besides the *‑(i)r*-extension discussed in [2.1](#21) –
|
|||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (83) | ètt-ìhèm | “I crossed” | ètt-èek-ìhèm | “I caused to cross” |
|
||||
| (84) | tèey-áhèm | “I carried” | tèey-éek-ìhêm | “I caused to carry” |
|
||||
| (85) | ètt-áhèm | “I bought” [oj pl]({sc}) | ètt-éek-ìhèm | “I sold” [oj pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (85) | ètt-áhèm | “I bought” [oj pl]({sc}) | ètt-éek-ìhêm | “I sold” [oj pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
Midob *ètt* represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the singular stem *èed.*[^87] As Midob nouns are not required to be marked for number,[^88] the plurality of the object is solely expressed by the plural stem *ètt.* Literally, the following example can be rendered as “I made him/her buy my goats,” that is, with an unexpressed pronominal causee.[^89]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -550,9 +550,9 @@ Midob *ètt* represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the sing
|
|||
{r} “I sold my goats”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Whereas the causative extensions in the Nile Nubian and Kordofan Nubian languages obviously originate from the Proto-Nubian *\*‑(i)gir*-extension, it is more difficult to show this for the Midob *‑éek ~ ‑èek.* The presence of the voiceless velar [k] is a first indication of the etymological relationship to *\*‑(i)gir,* since initial Proto-Nubian *\*g* is regularly shifted to Midob *k,* as attested by *\*geel-e → kéelé* “red,” *\*gorji → kórcí* “six,” and *\*goj → kòcc* “slaughter.”[^90] Furthermore, the long vowel of *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is suspected to be a realization of *\*‑(i)r,* because syllable-final *\*r* is often deleted in Midob. Compare *\*juur → sóo* “go, walk,” *\*weer → pèe* “someone (indefinite pronoun),” and *\*kir → ìi* “come.” The lengthening of the *ii*-vowel in the last item, which also attests the regular loss of initial *\*k* in Midob, is regarded to be a compensation for the lost *\*r.* Compensatory lengthening does not occur in *sóo* and *pèe* because they have an originally long vowel.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ The applicative – more precisely, the benefactive applicative – is a valency
|
|||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
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 [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 “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).
|
||||
|
||||
## Two Verbs for "give" {#31}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -572,9 +572,9 @@ It is assumed that originally each of the Nubian languages considered in this pa
|
|||
|
||||
This distinction is still reflected in Nile Nubian. In the languages of the western branch, however, the system is more complex because of the morphological blending of the two donative verbs. The resulting new donative verb is employed in non-imperative applicative forms ([3.4](#34)). In imperative applicative forms, by contrast, at least in Karko and Dilling, two distinct donative verbs are used (see [3.5](#35)).
|
||||
|
||||
**Table 6** shows that the Kordofan Nubian languages exhibit some unexpected reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen*. Tagle *tí* and Karko *tìì* and *tèn* exhibit an initial alveolar stop. The realization of the initial consonant of Dilling *tir* and *tin* is not known, because the Dilling data are drawn from Kauczor’s grammar which fails to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops – although the phonemic opposition between the dental and alveolar place of articulation is a characteristic of the Kordofan Nubian languages. For this reason, we can only assume that two donative verbs in Dilling have an initial alveolar stop *t,* just like the Karko items and the single Tagle “give” shown in **Table 6**.[^93]
|
||||
**Table 6** shows that the Kordofan Nubian languages exhibit some unexpected reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen*. Tagle *tí* and Karko *tìì* and *tèn* exhibit an initial alveolar stop. The realization of the initial consonant of Dilling *tir* and *tin* is not known, because the Dilling data are drawn from Kauczor’s grammar which fails to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops – although the phonemic opposition between the dental and alveolar place of articulation is a characteristic of the Kordofan Nubian languages. For this reason, we can only assume that the two donative verbs in Dilling have an initial alveolar stop *t,* just like the Karko items and the single Tagle “give” shown in **Table 6**.[^93]
|
||||
|
||||
[^93]: The alveolar *t* as 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ The following Andaandi clause exhibits the plural object extension *‑ir* being
|
|||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(94)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *in=gi*,[this=acc]({sc})|*ar=gi*,[1pl=acc]({sc})|*deen-c-irir*,give>1-[plact-ploj]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *in=gi*,this=[acc]({sc})|*ar=gi*,[1pl=acc]({sc})|*deen-c-irir*,give>1-[plact-ploj]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “give this to us!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -666,12 +666,12 @@ Tagle has lost the distinction between the two donative verbs, leaving a single
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(97)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Tagle**
|
||||
{g} *ɪ́yɪ́-g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*tí-m-ín*,give-[pst-3]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *ɪ́yɪ́=g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*tí-m-ín*,give-[pst-3]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “he gave him/them milk”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(98)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *ɪ́yɪ́-g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*ò=tí-m-ín*,[1sg.acc]({sc})=give-[pst-3]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *ɪ́yɪ́=g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*ò=tí-m-ín*,[1sg.acc]({sc})=give-[pst-3]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “he gave me milk”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -679,12 +679,11 @@ Like Dilling but unlike Tagle, Karko exhibits two donative verbs, *tìì* (wit
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(99)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Karko**
|
||||
{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*t̪ēē-g*,cow=[acc]({sc})|*tìì*,give>2/3|
|
||||
{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*t̪ēē=g*,cow=[acc]({sc})|*tìì*,give>2/3|
|
||||
{r} “give him this cow!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(100)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Karko**
|
||||
{g} *íǐ(g)*,[1pl.incl.acc]({sc})|*t̪ēē*,cow|*tèn*,give>1|
|
||||
{r} “give us a cow!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
|
@ -703,12 +702,12 @@ Parallel to their continuous use as independent verbs, the two Nubian donative v
|
|||
|
||||
## Converb Constructions {#32}
|
||||
|
||||
Before embarking on a more detailed account of these applicative constructions in [3.3](#33) and [3.4](#34), the present rather extensive section aims at shedding more light on the properties of the nonfinite dependent verbs. Due to their restricted occurrence and specific functions, these verbs are identified as converbs. Whereas converbs in Andaandi and Mattokki are morphologically unmarked, Old Nubian and Nobiin exhibit an *‑a*-suffix as converb marker. We claim that this suffix differs from the homophone “predicate marker” *‑a* which is attested as a clitic in Old Nubian and Nobiin. According to Van Gerven Oei, the Old Nubian *‑a* can cliticize to various hosts, including i) nominal and verbal predicates in main clauses; ii) final clauses; iii) the element preceding a universal quantifier; and iv) names and kinship terms where *‑a* is used as a vocative marker.[^102] A remnant of the Old Nubian predicate marker is attested in Nobiin, where it serves as a copula.[^103]
|
||||
Before embarking on a more detailed account of these applicative constructions in [3.3](#33), [3.4](#34), and [3.5](#35), the present rather extensive section aims at shedding more light on the properties of the nonfinite dependent verbs. Due to their restricted occurrence and specific functions, these verbs are identified as converbs. Whereas converbs in Andaandi and Mattokki are morphologically unmarked, Old Nubian and Nobiin exhibit an *‑a*-suffix as converb marker. We claim that this suffix differs from the homophone “predicate marker” *‑a* which is attested as a clitic in Old Nubian and Nobiin. According to Van Gerven Oei, Old Nubian *‑a* can cliticize to various hosts, including i) nominal and verbal predicates in main clauses; ii) final clauses; iii) the element preceding a universal quantifier; and iv) names and kinship terms where *‑a* is used as a vocative marker.[^102] A remnant of the Old Nubian predicate marker is also attested in Nobiin, where it serves as a copula.[^103]
|
||||
|
||||
[^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 “predicative.”[^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.
|
||||
[^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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -724,7 +723,7 @@ Converbs are known from various verb-final languages of Eurasia and South Americ
|
|||
[^113]: Jakobi & Crass, *Grammaire du beria,* pp. 168f.
|
||||
[^114]: Comfort, “Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).”
|
||||
|
||||
The characteristic semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages are first illustrated by three Nobiin examples. The converbs in (103) express a series of events, each of the transitive converbs being preceded by its acc-marked object argument. The converb *joog-j-a* additionally has an [ins]({sc})-marked adjunct *jaaw=log.* Thus, the converb(s) and the finite main verb together with their arguments and adjuncts constitute a multiclausal construction.[^115]
|
||||
The characteristic semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages are first illustrated by three Nobiin examples. The converbs in (103) express a series of events, each of the transitive converbs being preceded by its [acc]({sc})-marked object argument. The converb *joog-j-a* additionally has an [ins]({sc})-marked adjunct *jaaw=log.* Thus, the converb(s) and the finite main verb together with their arguments and adjuncts constitute a multiclausal construction.[^115]
|
||||
|
||||
[^115]: Example from Hashim, *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii,* p. 54.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -781,13 +780,13 @@ The stative aspect marker in Nobiin, for instance, is also associated with an as
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(107)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Nobiin**
|
||||
{g} V1,*kàb-à*,[eat-cnv]({sc})|V2,*fìir*,[stat.1pl]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} V1,*kàb-à*,eat-[cnv]({sc})|V2,*fìir*,[stat.1pl]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “we are eating”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Similarly, in Mattokki[^129] and Andaandi, a motion verb realized by an unmarked converb (V1), plus a finite posture verb buu “lie, rest” (V2), is used to express a transient state of motion. Due to its grammaticalization as a stative marker, V2 has lost its status as a separable main verb. The question clitic *te,* for instance, cannot be inserted between V1 and V2.[^130]
|
||||
Similarly, in Mattokki[^129] and Andaandi, a motion verb realized by an unmarked converb (V1), plus a finite posture verb *buu* “lie, rest” (V2), is used to express a transient state of motion. Due to its grammaticalization as a stative marker, V2 has lost its status as a separable main verb. The question clitic *te,* for instance, cannot be inserted between V1 and V2.[^130]
|
||||
|
||||
[^129]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 115-117.
|
||||
[^129]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 115–117.
|
||||
[^130]: Example from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 38.
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(108)" >}}
|
||||
|
|
@ -802,11 +801,11 @@ While the preceding Nobiin and Andaandi examples illustrate the grammaticalizati
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(109)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Nobiin**
|
||||
{r} ay ed-a kiir → ay ed-kiir [ekkiir] “I bring it,” lit. “I take it and come”
|
||||
{r} ay ed-a kiir > ay ed-kiir [ekkiir] “I bring it,” lit. “I take it and come”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(110)" >}}
|
||||
{r} ay ed-a juur → ay ed-juur [ejjuur] “I take it along,” lit. “I take it and go”
|
||||
{r} ay ed-a juur > ay ed-juur [ejjuur] “I take it along,” lit. “I take it and go”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -823,10 +822,10 @@ Andaandi, too, exhibits similar converb constructions expressing directed transf
|
|||
| (115) | tolle dukki | “pull it out!,” lit. “pull it and pull it out!” |
|
||||
| (116) | nog ju ind etta |“go and bring it,” lit. “go and move along and take it up and bring it!” |
|
||||
|
||||
In Mattokki, too, such transfer events are often expressed by more than one verb. When the derived transitive verb *ʃuguddi* “bring down,” for instance, is preceded by the converb *uski* “bear, give birth,” the resulting construction *uski ʃuguddi* expresses the single transfer event “give birth.”[^133] Abdel-Hafiz considers such biverbal constructions as compounds and consequently writes them as one word.[^134]
|
||||
In Mattokki, too, such transfer events are often expressed by more than one verb. When the derived transitive verb *ʃuguddi* “bring down,” for instance, is preceded by the converb *uski* “bear, give birth,” the resulting construction *uski ʃuguddi* expresses the single transfer event “give birth.”[^133] Abdel-Hafiz considers such biverbal converb constructions as compounds and consequently writes them as one word.[^134]
|
||||
|
||||
[^133]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 214. According to El‑Shafie El‑Guzuuli, p.c., this expression is not used in Andaandi.
|
||||
[^134]: Abdel-Hafiz, A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian, pp. 123–125. Example from ibid., p. 125.
|
||||
[^134]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 123–125. Example from ibid., p. 125.
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(117)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Mattokki**
|
||||
|
|
@ -855,16 +854,16 @@ Asymmetrical converb constructions can also become fixed collocations expressing
|
|||
|
||||
| | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (119) | dukk undur | “spread rumors!,” lit. “pull out and enter!” |
|
||||
| (119) | dukk-undur | “spread rumors!,” lit. “pull out and enter!” |
|
||||
| (120) | tull-undur | “spread lies!,” lit. “blow (smoke) and enter!”|
|
||||
|
||||
Such collocations and the grammaticalization of adjacent verbs are also manifested in asymmetric serial verb constructions, as Aikhenvald points out.[^140] For this reason, these features cannot be regarded as defining properties of converbs.
|
||||
|
||||
[^140]: Aikhenvald, “Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective, p. 30f.”
|
||||
[^140]: Aikhenvald, “Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective,” p. 30f.
|
||||
|
||||
The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions attested in the modern Nile Nubian languages are also apparent in Old Nubian whose converbs are marked by ‑ⲁ. The converb(s) and the main verb, along with their respective object complements and adjuncts, form multiclausal constructions which can express a series of events, as illustrated by ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧ-ⲁ … ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ-ⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (121) and by ⳝⲟⲣ-ⲁ ⲕⲓ-ⲁ̄ … ⲕⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ in (122).[^141]
|
||||
|
||||
[^141]: Examples from Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas.*
|
||||
[^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)).
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(121)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Old Nubian**
|
||||
|
|
@ -875,7 +874,7 @@ The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions a
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(122)" >}}
|
||||
{r} ⳟⲥⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲏⲛⲁⲉⲓⲟⲛ ⲙⲁⲛ ⲉⲧ̄ⲧⲛ̄ ⳟⲟⲅⲗⲟ ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ ϣⲁⲁⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲙ̄ⲙⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ·
|
||||
{g} ŋissou,Saint|*mēna=eion*,Mina=[top]({sc})|*man*,that|*eitt=in*,woman=[gen]({sc})|*ŋog=lo*,house=[loc]({sc})|*jor-a*,go-[cnv]({sc})|*ki-a*,come-[cnv]({sc})|*ʃaak=ka*,door=[acc]({sc})|*kimm-a*,hit-[cnv]({sc})|*ook-ir-s-n-a*,call-[tr-pt2-2/3-pred]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} ŋissou,Saint|*mēna=eion*,Mina=[top]({sc})|*man*,that|*eitt=in*,woman=[gen]({sc})|*ŋog=lo*,house=[loc]({sc})|*jor-a*,go-[cnv]({sc})|*ki-a*,come-[cnv]({sc})|*ʃaak=ka*,door=[acc]({sc})|*kimm-a*,hit-[cnv]({sc})|*ook-ir-s-n-a*,call-[caus-pt2-2/3-pred]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “And Saint Mena went to the house of that woman, knocked on the door and had her called.” (M 12.13–16)
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -902,17 +901,17 @@ Similar to the modern Nile Nubian languages, Old Nubian converbs do not take inf
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(125)" >}}
|
||||
{r} ⲥ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲕⲕⲟⲛⲁ ⲧⲱⲉⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲁ ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲓⳝ[ⲁ̄]· ⳟⲁⲗⲓ̈ⳝⲟⲩⲁⲇⲇⲛ[ⲁ]ⲉⲛⲕⲱ
|
||||
{g} *istaurosou*,cross|*ŋok-ko-na*,glory-[adj=gen]({sc})|*tōek*-∅,power-[nom]({sc})|*tek=ka*,[3pl=acc]({sc})|*aul-os-ij-a*,save-[pfv-plact-cnv]({sc})|*ŋal-ijou-ad-d-n-a-enkō*,save-[plact-inten-prs-2/3sg-pred]({sc})-but|
|
||||
{g} *istaurosou*,cross|*ŋok-ko=na*,glory-[adj=gen]({sc})|*tōek*-∅,power-[nom]({sc})|*tek=ka*,[3pl=acc]({sc})|*aul-os-ij-a*,save-[pfv-plact-cnv]({sc})|*ŋal-ijou-ad-d-n-a-enkō*,save-[plact-inten-prs-2/3sg-pred]({sc})-but|
|
||||
{r} “but (the) power of the glorious cross will save and rescue them” (St 15.1–9)
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Asymmetric converb constructions in Old Nubian often involve two contiguous motion or transfer verbs. These collocations serve to express single directed events, as shown by (121) ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ “descend” plus “come,” i.e., “go down to” or (122) ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ “go” plus “come,” i.e., “go to." Collocations of two nearly synonymous verbs can even turn into compound verb stems in which the converb marker is deleted.[^148]
|
||||
Asymmetric converb constructions in Old Nubian often involve two contiguous motion or transfer verbs. These collocations serve to express single directed events, as shown by (121) ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ “descend” plus “come,” i.e., “go down to” or (122) ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ “go” plus “come,” i.e., “go to.” Collocations of two nearly synonymous verbs can even turn into compound verb stems in which the converb marker is deleted.[^148]
|
||||
|
||||
[^148]: Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas,* p. 35 describes the unmarked converb in these collocations as “desinenceless adjunctive.”
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(126)" >}}
|
||||
{r} ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ- “present an offering” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “worship” (M 6.5)
|
||||
{r} ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “present an offering” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “worship” (M 6.5)
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(127)" >}}
|
||||
|
|
@ -925,7 +924,7 @@ Now, after having described the morphological, syntactic, and semantic propertie
|
|||
|
||||
While Nile Nubian languages and Midob employ reflexes of *\*tir* in their applicative constructions, the Kordofan Nubian languages employ a new donative verb. As this verb is not a regular reflex of *\*tir,* it is not accounted for in this section but rather in [3.4](#34).
|
||||
|
||||
Nile Nubian applicatives are encoded by bipartite converb constructions, including a converb, which contributes to the lexical expression of the event, and an inflected donative verb as a marker of increased valence. In the western Nubian languages, however, the donative verb is a derivational extension which attaches to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *-(i)n,* see Midob in **Table 7** and examples of Kordofan Nubian in [3.4](#34). Whereas the Midob applicative extension *-(i)n-tir* can license a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary, the Nile Nubian applicative based on *tir is restricted to 2nd and 3rd person beneficiaries, thus retaining the original system.
|
||||
Nile Nubian applicatives are encoded by bipartite converb constructions, including a converb, which contributes to the lexical expression of the event, and an inflected donative verb as a marker of increased valence. In the western Nubian languages, however, the donative verb is a derivational extension which attaches to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *-(i)n,* see Midob in **Table 7** and examples of Kordofan Nubian in [3.4](#34). Whereas the Midob applicative extension *-(i)n-tir* can license a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary, the Nile Nubian applicative based on *\*tir* is restricted to 2nd and 3rd person beneficiaries, thus retaining the original system.
|
||||
|
||||
| PN | ON | No | Ma | An | Dil | Ta | Ka | Mi |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -957,7 +956,7 @@ The following three examples illustrate an applicative construction with the utt
|
|||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(130)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *talaamiidii=g*,disciples=[acc]({sc})|*iig-a-tij-j-on* (← *iig-a-tir-j-on*),say-[cnv-appl>2/3-plact-pt.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *talaamiidii=g*,disciples=[acc]({sc})|*iig-a-tij-j-on* (< *iig-a-tir-j-on*),say-[cnv-appl>2/3-plact-pt.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “he told his disciples”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -983,7 +982,7 @@ Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin converbs, which are marked by *‑a,* Mattokki and
|
|||
{r} “I am telling you”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Massenbach, Armbruster, Werner, and Abdel-Hafiz represent the biverbal applicative constructions as single words.[^157] At least in Andaandi, however, the question clitic te can be inserted between the converb and the finite donative verb. This indicates that the converb and the donative verb are separable free forms. The question of whether the two verbs in the corresponding Nobiin and Mattokki applicative constructions can be separated as well has yet to be investigated.[^161]
|
||||
Massenbach, Armbruster, Werner, and Abdel-Hafiz represent the biverbal applicative constructions as single words.[^157] At least in Andaandi, however, the question clitic *te* can be inserted between the converb and the finite donative verb. This indicates that the converb and the donative verb are separable free forms. The question of whether the two verbs in the corresponding Nobiin and Mattokki applicative constructions can be separated as well has yet to be investigated.[^161]
|
||||
|
||||
[^157]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes”; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §3998; Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 272; Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.*
|
||||
[^161]: Example provided by El-Guzuuli, p.c., November 2013.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1017,7 +1016,7 @@ Unlike the Nile Nubian applicatives where a donative verb operates in an asymmet
|
|||
|
||||
| Dil | Ta | Ka |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| -n-di ← -n-ti | -n-dì ← -n-tì | -n-dìì ← -n-tìì |
|
||||
| -n-di < -n-ti | -n-dì < -n-tì | -n-dìì < -n-tìì |
|
||||
|
||||
**~~Table 8. The applicative extension in the Kordofan Nubian languages~~**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1037,7 +1036,7 @@ Dilling *ti* is referred to by Kauczor as “verbum dativum.”[^163] When attac
|
|||
{r} “he hit me (on my) head”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
In Tagle, too, the linker *‑(i)n* connects the applicative extension *-tì* with the lexical verb stem. The *‑tì*-extension is realized as [dì] after adopting the [+voice] feature of the nasal in *‑(i).* Although Tagle suffixes mostly take the same ATR value as the root vowel, the applicative suffix retains the [+ATR] value of the donative verb *tì.* This suggests that the applicative extension *‑n-dì* has not yet acquired the phonological properties of "regular" bound morphemes, whose vowels commonly harmonize with the root vowel. As applicative extension, Tagle *tì* has a low tone. When used as independent verb, it has a high tone, as seen in (97) and (98). Examples (139) and (140) show the applicative extension referring to a 3rd person and a 1st person beneficiary.[^166]
|
||||
In Tagle, too, the linker *‑(i)n* connects the applicative extension *-tì* with the lexical verb stem. The *‑tì*-extension is realized as [dì] after adopting the [+voice] feature of the nasal in *‑(i)n.* Although Tagle suffixes mostly take the same ATR value as the root vowel, the applicative suffix retains the [+ATR] value of the donative verb *tì.* This suggests that the applicative extension *‑n-dì* has not yet acquired the phonological properties of "regular" bound morphemes, whose vowels commonly harmonize with the root vowel. As applicative extension, Tagle *tì* has a low tone. When used as independent verb, it has a high tone, as seen in (97) and (98). Examples (139) and (140) show the applicative extension referring to a 3rd person and a 1st person beneficiary.[^166]
|
||||
|
||||
[^166]: Tagle examples provided by Ali Ibrahim, p.c.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1052,7 +1051,7 @@ In Tagle, too, the linker *‑(i)n* connects the applicative extension *-tì* wi
|
|||
{r} “the girl weeded the field for me”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Applicative extentions may attach to an intransitive or transitive verb stem, as illustrated by the Karko verbs *ɕīj* “descend ([itr]({sc}))" and kɛɛ “make sth. good ([tr]({sc}))," respectively, shown in (141)–(143). The applicative extension *‑n-dìì* is a realization of *-n-tìì.* It licenses both a 3rd person, a 1st person, and a 2nd person beneficiary. The pronominal [3sg]({sc}) beneficiary *t̪éě* is not required to be overtly expressed. The position of the locative‑marked adjunct is variable, preceding or following the verb phrase.[^167]
|
||||
Applicative extentions may attach to an intransitive or transitive verb stem, as illustrated by the Karko verbs *ɕīj* “descend ([itr]({sc}))” and *kɛɛ* “make sth. good ([tr]({sc})),” respectively, shown in (141)–(143). The applicative extension *‑n-dìì* (*-dìì* after *l*) is a realization of *-n-tìì.* It licenses both a 3rd person, a 1st person, and a 2nd person beneficiary. The pronominal [3sg]({sc}) beneficiary *t̪éě* is not required to be overtly expressed. The position of the locative‑marked adjunct is variable, preceding or following the verb phrase.[^167]
|
||||
|
||||
[^167]: Karko examples provided by Ahmed Hamdan, p.c. For the plural stem extension *‑(V)k* on *ɕīj‑īk-n-dìì* see [4.2](#42) and [6.5](#65).
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1084,18 +1083,18 @@ Reflexes of *\*deen* “give to 1st person” are attested in all Nile Nubian ap
|
|||
|
||||
**~~Table 9. Nile Nubian applicative marker *\*deen*~~**
|
||||
|
||||
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 (141) 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).
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(144)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Old Nubian**
|
||||
{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})|*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})|
|
||||
{r} “reveal to us the mystery which we ask you” (St 5.3–7)
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The position of the pronominal beneficiary appears to be variable. In (141) the pronominal beneficiary ⲟⲩⲕⲁ immediately precedes the converb, whereas in Nobiin example (145) the theme precedes the converb, the pronominal beneficiary occupying clause-initial position.[^172]
|
||||
The position of the pronominal beneficiary appears to be variable. In (144) the pronominal beneficiary ⲟⲩⲕⲁ immediately precedes the converb, whereas in Nobiin example (145) the theme precedes the converb, the pronominal beneficiary occupying clause-initial position.[^172]
|
||||
|
||||
[^172]: Example from Abel, *Eine Erzählung im Dialekt von Ermenne,* ex. 69.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1126,7 +1125,7 @@ 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]
|
||||
|
||||
[^176]: Example provided by Example provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c.. The [3sg]({sc}) pronominal direct object is unexpressed.
|
||||
[^176]: EExample provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c. The [3sg]({sc}) pronominal direct object is unexpressed.
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(148)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Andaandi**
|
||||
|
|
@ -1134,12 +1133,12 @@ Studies of the modern Nile Nubian languages mostly represent the periphrastic ap
|
|||
{r} “did you send it to me?”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
As for Kordofan Nubian, only Dilling and Karko have retained reflexes of *\*deen.* They appear in two grammatical contextsL i) when employed as lexical transfer verbs, as shown in [3.1](#31); and ii) when used as applicative extensions in imperative forms. Tagle, by contrast, has preserved no reflex of *\*deen.*
|
||||
As for Kordofan Nubian, only Dilling and Karko have retained reflexes of *\*deen.* They appear in two grammatical contexts: i) when employed as lexical transfer verbs, as shown in [3.1](#31); and ii) when used as applicative extensions in imperative forms. Tagle, by contrast, has preserved no reflex of *\*deen.*
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Dil | Ta | Ka |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| -nin ← -(i)n-tin [imp]({sc}) | – | -nVn ← n-tèn [imp]({sc}) |
|
||||
| -nin < -n-tin [imp]({sc}) | – | -nVn < -n-tèn [imp]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
**~~Table 10. Kordofan Nubian applicative markers in imperatives based on *\*deen*~~**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1160,13 +1159,13 @@ The directed transfer verbs *kuʃ* “take to” and *kwata* “bring” assign
|
|||
{r} “bring me water!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Similar to Dilling *-nin,* Karko exhibits with *-nVn* a realization of the linker *-(i)n* fused with *tèn* “give to 1st person,” which is a regular reflex of *\*deen.* The applicative extension *-nVn* contrasts with *-n-dìì* (after *b* realized as the allomorph *‑m-bìì*) which originates from the linker plus the irregular donative verb *tìì* and refers to a 3rd person beneficiary.
|
||||
Similar to Dilling *-nin,* Karko exhibits with *-nVn* a realization of the linker *-(i)n* fused with *tèn* “give to 1st person,” the latter being a regular reflex of *\*deen.* The applicative extension *-nVn* contrasts with *-n-dìì* (after *b* realized as the allomorph *‑m-bìì*) which originates from the linker plus the irregular donative verb *tìì* and refers to a 3rd person beneficiary.
|
||||
|
||||
Interestingly, in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the morphosyntactic behavior of the two objects differs from the behavior of the corresponding objects in the Nile Nubian languages. In the Kordofan Nubian languages, it is the number of the theme argument that triggers the selection of a singular or plural verb stem. In Karko, for instance, a singular theme selects the singular verb stem *ɕùù* (151), while a plural theme selects the plural stem *ɕùb* (152). In the Nile Nubian languages, by contrast, it is the number of the beneficiary which interacts with the verb stem, as seen in (144), where the 1st person plural beneficiary selects the *‑(i)j*-marked plural verb stem.
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(151)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Karko**
|
||||
{g} *kèt̪=èg*,cloth.[sg=acc]|*ɕùù-m-bìì*,wash.[sng-lk-appl>2/3]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *kèt̪=èg*,cloth.[sg=acc]({sc})|*ɕùù-m-bìì*,wash.[sng-lk-appl>2/3]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “wash the cloth for him/them!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1180,7 +1179,7 @@ Interestingly, in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the morphosyntactic
|
|||
{r} “wash the clothes for us!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Summarizing [3](#3), we recognize that the reflexes of the donative verbs *\*tir* and *\*deen* continue to be employed as lexical verbs of transfer. Parallel to this use and bleached of their original semantic content, they have come to serve as valency-increasing grammatical elements in applicative constructions – at least in the Nile Nubian languages. In Kordofan Nubian, however, a simplification process has begun which is associated with the emergence of a new verb *ti* which is replacing the original donative verbs and is considered to result from a morphological blending of both. The initial consonant of *ti* appears to be a reflex of the initial of *\*deen,* while the high front vowel of *ti* stems from the vowel of *\*tir.* In Karko, such *CV*-shaped lexical items are realized with a long vowel, as confirmed by Karko *tìì* “give,” in Tagle with a short vowel, *tí.* This contrast is also attested by Karko *dìì* “drink” corresponding to Tagle *dì,* and Karko *tìì* “die” corresponding to Tagle *tì.* Note that Karko *tìì* “die” and *tìì* “give” are homophones.
|
||||
Summarizing [3](#3), we recognize that the reflexes of the donative verbs *\*tir* and *\*deen* continue to be employed as lexical verbs of transfer. Parallel to this use and bleached of their original semantic content, they have come to serve as valency-increasing grammatical elements in applicative constructions – at least in the Nile Nubian languages. In Kordofan Nubian, however, a simplification process has begun which is associated with the emergence of a new verb *ti* which is replacing the original donative verbs and is considered to result from a morphological blending of both. The initial consonant of *ti* appears to be a reflex of the initial of *\*deen,* while the high front vowel of *ti* stems from the vowel of *\*tir.* In Karko, such CV-shaped lexical items are realized with a long vowel, as confirmed by Karko *tìì* “give,” in Tagle with a short vowel, *tí.* This contrast is also attested by Karko *dìì* “drink” corresponding to Tagle *dì,* and Karko *tìì* “die” corresponding to Tagle *tì.* Note that Karko *tìì* “die” and *tìì* “give” are homophones.
|
||||
|
||||
# Verbal Number {#4}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1225,9 +1224,9 @@ While Lepsius refers to the -(i)j-extension in Nobiin as “verbum plurale,”[^
|
|||
[^182]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 173.
|
||||
[^183]: Examples from Werner, p.c., October 2020.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Nobiin | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (156) | ày kàb-ìr | “I eat” [oj sg]({sc}) | ày kàb-j-ir | “I eat (a lot or several times)” [oj pl]({sc})
|
||||
| | Nobiin | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (156) | ày kàb-ìr | “I eat” [oj sg]({sc}) | ày kàb-j-ir | “I eat (a lot or several times)” [oj pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (157) | ày nèer-ìr | “I sleep” | ày nèer-j-ìr | “I sleep (several times)” |
|
||||
|
||||
Because of the wide range of functions covered by *‑(i)j,* Khalil uses the term “verbal plural marker.”[^184] Apart from interacting with plural participants and event plurality, the *‑(i)j*-extension is also used to signal respect when addressing a person, as Khalil shows.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1250,7 +1249,7 @@ As for *‑(i)j* in Mattokki, Massenbach highlights the fact that it expresses t
|
|||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(160)" >}}
|
||||
{g} ter,[3sg]({sc})|*gulud=ki*,jar=[acc]({sc})|*aa-toog-ij-mun-um*,[prog]({sc})-break-[plact-neg-neut.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *ter*,[3sg]({sc})|*gulud=ki*,jar=[acc]({sc})|*aa-toog-ij-mun-um*,[prog]({sc})-break-[plact-neg-neut.3sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “he does not smash the jar”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1272,7 +1271,7 @@ In (162) the *‑(i)j*-extension is realized as [is], due to regressive assimila
|
|||
|
||||
As for the Andaandi suffix *‑(i)j,* Armbruster notes that it “usually has an intensive or repetitive force.”[^187]
|
||||
|
||||
[^187]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2881. Examples from ibid, §2883f.
|
||||
[^187]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2881. Examples from ibid., §2883f.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Andaandi | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -1365,12 +1364,12 @@ The other pair of examples raises the question whether the *‑j*-extension is r
|
|||
[^194]: Examples from ibid., pp. 49 and 86. Werner erroneously translates them as “I answered” and “we answered.” However, as the Midob *-wa*-suffix marks the [1sg]({sc}) and [1pl]({sc}) of the “continuous indicative,” they should be rendered by “I answer” and “we answer.”
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(182)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *éeg-ìr-wà*,answer-[tr-ind.cont.1sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *éeg-ìr-wà*,answer-[caus-ind.cont.1sg]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “I answer”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(183)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *éeg-ìr-j-wà*,answer-[tr-plact-ind.cont.1pl]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *éeg-ìr-j-wà*,answer-[caus-plact-ind.cont.1pl]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “we answer”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1383,7 +1382,7 @@ In addition to its event plurality and participant plurality marking function, M
|
|||
| (184) | kóod | “see” [imp 2sg]({sc}) | kóod-íc | “see” [imp 2pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (185) | sô | “go” [imp 2sg]({sc}) | sóo-íc [sówíc] | “go” [imp 2pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
This development of the pluractional extension adopting the additional function of a 2nd person plural imperative marker is an innovation which is unattested in the other Nubian languages.
|
||||
This development of the pluractional extension adopting the additional function of a [2pl]({sc}) imperative marker is an innovation which is unattested in the other Nubian languages.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Plural Stem Extension *\*-(i)k* {#42}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1397,7 +1396,7 @@ Probably because the *\*‑(i)k* extension is mainly attested on ideophonic verb
|
|||
|
||||
As Armbruster was the first to provide evidence of the *‑(i)k*-extension, this section considers Andaandi data first.[^196] Listing a few pairs of verbs Armbruster identifies *‑k* as a suffix with “perhaps intensive or factitive” meaning. While it is obvious that the geminate velar stop *kk* results from the regressive assimilation of the root-final consonant to the following *‑k,* it is not clear why the long root vowel is shortened in case of (186) *jak-k-i* and (187) *jok-k-i* but unchanged in the case of (188) *uuk-k-i.*
|
||||
|
||||
[^196]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2852-2855.
|
||||
[^196]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2852–2855.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Andaandi | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -1419,7 +1418,7 @@ Armbruster provides a list of some twenty Andaandi verbs exhibiting *‑k.* Most
|
|||
{r} “the fire is blazing”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Although Massenbach does not address the ‑k-extension in her Mattokki grammar sketch, her dictionary contains some verbs which exhibit *-k,* e.g., *jok-k(i)* “chew”; *kil-ik(i)* “chirp”; *tos-k(i)* “cough”; and *wak-k(i)* “yelp (fox).” The fact that *‑k* often occurs on verbs depicting inherently repetitive events like rumble, blaze, chew, chirp, cough, and yelp indicates that it reflects event plurality.
|
||||
Although Massenbach does not address the *‑k*-extension in her Mattokki grammar sketch, her dictionary contains some verbs which exhibit *-k,* e.g., *jok-k(i)* “chew”; *kil-ik(i)* “chirp”; *tos-k(i)* “cough”; and *wak-k(i)* “yelp (fox).” The fact that *‑k* often occurs on verbs depicting inherently repetitive events like rumble, blaze, chew, chirp, cough, and yelp indicates that it reflects event plurality.
|
||||
|
||||
This is also true for Nobiin. Werner’s compilation of Nobiin ideophones contains a list of sixteen “ideophonic verbs imitating animal sounds,” all sharing a low-high tone pattern.[^199] Among these verbs are nine which exhibit the *-k*-extension. Here we present just two examples.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1444,20 +1443,20 @@ The *‑k*-extension in the Nile Nubian languages is assumed to be cognate to *
|
|||
|
||||
| | Dilling[^201] | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
|
||||
[^201]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 128.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Tagle | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
|
||||
| | Karko | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
|
||||
As Midob is still comparatively poorly documented, there is presently no clear evidence of the *\*-(i)k*-extension.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1476,13 +1475,13 @@ According to Dimmendaal’s typological study, the archaic causative *\*i*-prefi
|
|||
|
||||
## The Causative Prefix in the Nubian Languages {#51}
|
||||
|
||||
Me’en, Majang, Kipsigiis, and Ma’di have retained reflexes of the causative prefix with the original high front vowel *i ~ ɪ.* This *V*-shaped prefix is recognized both in Nubian and Ama although it has undergone vowel shifts. In the Nubian languages, this shift has resulted in the emergence of an *\*u- ~ o-* prefix, in Ama the shift has led to the prefix *a-* (see [5.2](#52)). The reconstructed Nubian vowels *\*u ~ o* can be identified as prefixes because they are all associated with transitive verb stems which contrast with the phonologically and semantically similar intransitive verb stems that do not exhibit an initial vowel. The small number of these derived transitive verbs and the lack of productivity of the vowel prefix suggest that they are a remnant of the archaic causative *\*i*-prefix.
|
||||
Me’en, Majang, Kipsigiis, and Ma’di have retained reflexes of the causative prefix with the original high front vowel *i ~ ɪ.* This V-shaped prefix is retained both in Nubian and Ama although it has undergone vowel shifts. In the Nubian languages, this shift has resulted in the emergence of an *\*u- ~ o-* prefix, in Ama the shift has led to the prefix *a-* (see [5.2](#52)). The reconstructed Nubian vowels *\*u ~ o* can be identified as prefixes because they are all associated with transitive verb stems which contrast with the phonologically and semantically similar intransitive verb stems that do not exhibit an initial vowel. The small number of these derived transitive verbs and the lack of productivity of the vowel prefix suggest that they are a remnant of the archaic causative *\*i*-prefix.
|
||||
|
||||
Prefixes are rare in the Nubian languages. Another instance of a petrified prefix is the verbal negation marker *\*m-,*[^203] which is attested in all Nubian languages: e.g., Old Nubian ⲙ-ⲟⲛ, ⲙ-ⲟⲩⲛ “hate, reject, be reluctant” vs. ⲟⲛ, ⲟⲩⲛ “love,” Nobiin *m-éskìr* “be unable” vs. *éské* “be able.” In Dilling, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /b/: *b-or-di* “barren” vs. *ir* “give birth.” In Midob, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /p/: *p-óon-hèm* “I hated, refused, rejected” vs. *óo-hêm* (← *óonhèm*) “I loved.” As the prefixing pattern strongly deviates from the predominantly suffixing pattern, which is now typical of all Nubian languages, it suggests that a restructuring process has taken place.
|
||||
Prefixes are rare in the Nubian languages. Another instance of a petrified prefix is the verbal negation marker *\*m-,*[^203] which is attested in all Nubian languages: e.g., Old Nubian ⲙ-ⲟⲛ, ⲙ-ⲟⲩⲛ “hate, reject, be reluctant” vs. ⲟⲛ, ⲟⲩⲛ “love,” Nobiin *m-éskìr* “be unable” vs. *éské* “be able.” In Dilling, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /b/: *b-or-di* “barren” vs. *ir* “give birth.” In Midob, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /p/: *p-óon-hèm* “I hated, refused, rejected” vs. *óo-hêm* (< *óonhèm*) “I loved.” As the prefixing pattern strongly deviates from the predominantly suffixing pattern, which is now typical of all Nubian languages, it suggests that a restructuring process has taken place.
|
||||
|
||||
[^203]: The “verbal negative in m” is a feature of several Eastern Sudanic languages; see Greenberg, *Studies in African Linguistic Classification,* p. 76.
|
||||
|
||||
A closer look at the examples below reveals that when the causative prefix is attached to a verb root, it tends to adopt the quality of the root vowel. The root vowel, in turn, often adopts the quality of the original high front vowel prefix *\*i-*. This process is known as paradigmatic displacement,[^204] which is probably motivated by the canonical *(C)V(V)(C)* shape of Nubian roots. When they are followed by another syllable, this second syllable tends to be reanalyzed as a suffix. Such a syllabic suffix is usually realized with an epenthetic high front vowel *i.*
|
||||
A closer look at the examples below reveals that when the causative prefix is attached to a verb root, it tends to adopt the quality of the root vowel. The root vowel, in turn, often adopts the quality of the original high front vowel prefix *\*i-*. This process is known as paradigmatic displacement,[^204] which is probably motivated by the canonical (C)V(V)(C) shape of Nubian roots. When they are followed by another syllable, this second syllable tends to be reanalyzed as a suffix. Such a syllabic suffix is usually realized with an epenthetic high front vowel *i.*
|
||||
|
||||
[^204]: Dimmendaal, *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages,* p. 107.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1496,7 +1495,7 @@ In Old Nubian,[^205] for instance, there is evidence of an ⲟⲩ-prefix on tran
|
|||
|
||||
[^205]: Due to the lack of a standard orthography, the ON lexical items commonly exhibit several spelling variants.
|
||||
|
||||
| | | |
|
||||
| | Old Nubian | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (200) | ⲧⲟⲣ, ⲧⲟⲩⲣ, ⲧⲟ(ⲣ)ⲁⲣ | “enter” [itr]({sc}) |
|
||||
| | ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲣ̄, ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲟⲩⲣ, ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲁⲣ | “lay, put, hold, deposit” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
|
@ -1509,7 +1508,7 @@ Another intransitive verb root, ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ “descend,” attests two deriv
|
|||
| | ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲕ-(ⲁ)ⲣ, ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲕ-ⲟⲩⲣ | “place” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
| | ⲥⲟⲩⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ | “cause to descend” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
The *u*-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the modern Nile Nubian languages: e.g., *u-dir* (Nobiin); *u-ndur* (Mattokki and Andaandi); and *u-skir* (Nobiin, Mattokki, Andaandi). Lepsius recognizes that Andaandi *u-ndire, u-ndure* is a cognate of Nobiin *u-dire.*[^206] The addition of the nasal attested in *u-ndir(e)* and *u-ndur(e)* is due to epenthesis.[^208] It is conceivable that the derived unattested stem *u-toor* underwent a number of phonological and morphological changes, including vowel assimilation, the insertion of the epenthetic *n,* which has triggered the voicing of the following original root-initial *t,* and the re-analysis of the root-final *Vr* sequence as the causative *‑ir*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Two distinct developments are assumed: *utoor → utor → utur → untur → undur,* as attested in Mattokki and Andaandi, and *utoor → utur → udur → udir* in Nobiin.
|
||||
The *u*-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the modern Nile Nubian languages: e.g., *u-dir* (Nobiin); *u-ndur* (Mattokki and Andaandi); and *u-skir* (Nobiin, Mattokki, Andaandi). Lepsius recognizes that Andaandi *u-ndire, u-ndure* is a cognate of Nobiin *u-dire.*[^206] The addition of the nasal attested in *u-ndir(e)* and *u-ndur(e)* is due to epenthesis.[^208] It is conceivable that the derived unattested stem *u-toor* underwent a number of phonological and morphological changes, including vowel assimilation, the insertion of the epenthetic *n,* which has triggered the voicing of the following original root-initial *t,* and the re-analysis of the root-final *Vr* sequence as the causative *‑ir*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Two distinct developments are assumed: *utoor > utor > utur > untur > undur,* as attested in Mattokki and Andaandi, and *utoor > utur > udur > udir* in Nobiin.
|
||||
|
||||
[^206]: Lepsius, Nubische Grammatik, pp. 405, 141f. Lepsius regards the verb-final *-e* on *undire, undure, udire, sukke, uskire* as the infinitive suffix.
|
||||
[^208]: Epenthesis involving a consonant is specifically known as excrescence. The insertion of a nasal before another consonant, as attested by *undur,* has also occurred in English *messenger* and *passenger,* which are loanwords originating from the French nouns *messager* and *passager.*
|
||||
|
|
@ -1522,7 +1521,7 @@ The *u*-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the mode
|
|||
| | **Ma** | u-ndur-e | “put in, name, dress” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
| | **An** | u-ndur-e | “put in, introduce, insert” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
[^209]: In Mattokki and Andaandi, some lexical items with a root-final *r* delete this *r* in the citation form. However, when followed by a suffix, the *r* shows up again, e.g., *toor-os-ko-r-an* “they have entered"; *toor-iid* “entrance.”
|
||||
[^209]: In Mattokki and Andaandi, some lexical items with a root-final *r* delete this *r* in the citation form. However, when followed by a suffix, the *r* shows up again, e.g., *toor-os-ko-r-an* “they have entered”; *toor-iid* “entrance.”
|
||||
|
||||
The extension of the verb stem *u-sk* with the causative *‑ir* results from a secondary process that started when the causative prefix lost its productivity.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1532,7 +1531,7 @@ The extension of the verb stem *u-sk* with the causative *‑ir* results from a
|
|||
| | **No**, **Ma**, **An** | u-sk-ir-e | “put down, lay down” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
| | **Ma**, **An** | u-sk-ir-e | “give birth” [tr]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
As for Kordofan Nubian, Kauczor was the first to recognize the extension of verb stems by means of prefixes (“Stammbildung durch Präfixe”).[^210] As they introduce a causer, the Dilling *u-* and *o-*prefixes are assumed to be reflexes of the archaic *\*i*-causative.
|
||||
As for Kordofan Nubian, Kauczor was the first to recognize the extension of verb stems by means of prefixes (“Stammbildung durch Präfixe”).[^210] As they introduce a causer, the Dilling *u*- and *o*-prefixes are assumed to be reflexes of the archaic *\*i*-causative.
|
||||
|
||||
[^210]: Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 137.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1555,7 +1554,7 @@ These two verb pairs have cognates in Tagle. A native speaker, however, would no
|
|||
|
||||
[^212]: The initial /e/ vowel in Tagle *ètírì* regularly corresponds to /o/ in other Kordofan Nubian cognates (Ali Ibrahim, p.c.).
|
||||
|
||||
Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put down” and “enter”/“insert” exist in Karko awe well. The archaic Nilo-Saharan *\*i*-prefix is reflected by the initial vowel of the transitive items, which is associated with a particular form of vowel harmony in which the quality of the root vowel is adopted by the short suffix vowel due to lag assimilation: e.g., *òk-ót̪* “bean” [sg]({sc}); *ūk-ūnd̪* “fire” [pl]({sc}); *ɕə̀t-ə̀d* “closed” [ptc sg]({sc}). The imperative forms *ə̄-t̪ə́r, ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r, ū-júr* suggest that the initial vowels of these verbs are re-analyzed as root vowels and that the verb-final *Vr* sequence is conceived of as a *‑Vr*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Karko imperatives are marked by a low tone when the verb stems are underived: e.g., *t̪òr* and *jɛ̀r*. The imperative forms of verbs derived by *‑Vr,* however, can have different tone patterns depending on the tone class to which the verbs belong. The contrast between singular and plural imperative forms is unmarked by dedicated suffixes but often expressed by vowel alternation, as (208) *ə̄-t̪ə́r* vs. *ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r* illustrate.
|
||||
Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put down” and “enter”/“insert” exist in Karko as well. The archaic Nilo-Saharan *\*i*-prefix is reflected by the initial vowel of the transitive items, which is associated with a particular form of vowel harmony in which the quality of the root vowel is adopted by the short suffix vowel due to lag assimilation: e.g., *òk-ót̪* “bean” [sg]({sc}); *ūk-ūnd̪* “fire” [pl]({sc}); *ɕə̀t-ə̀d* “closed” [ptc sg]({sc}). The imperative forms *ə̄-t̪ə́r, ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r, ū-júr* suggest that the initial vowels of these verbs are re-analyzed as root vowels and that the verb-final *Vr* sequence is conceived of as a *‑Vr*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Karko imperatives are marked by a low tone when the verb stems are underived: e.g., *t̪òr* and *jɛ̀r*. The imperative forms of verbs derived by *‑Vr,* however, can have different tone patterns depending on the tone class to which the verbs belong. The contrast between singular and plural imperative forms is unmarked by dedicated suffixes but often expressed by vowel alternation, as (208) *ə̄-t̪ə́r* vs. *ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r* illustrate.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Karko | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -1571,18 +1570,18 @@ Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put d
|
|||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(211)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *ɕǎnt̪àà=g*,bag=[acc]({sc})|*kúrɕī=ét̪*,chair=[loc]({sc})|*ū-júr*,caus-put.down|
|
||||
{g} *ɕǎnt̪àà=g*,bag=[acc]({sc})|*kúrɕī=ét̪*,chair=[loc]({sc})|*ū-júr*,[caus]({sc})-put.down|
|
||||
{r} “put the bag on the chair!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Because of their phonological and semantic similarities, the Midob verb stems *súkk* “descend” and *ú-kk* “give birth” can be identified are cognates of Nile Nubian *sukk-* “descend” and *u-skir-* “put down, lay down, give birth;” see examples (201) and (203) above.
|
||||
Because of their phonological and semantic similarities, the Midob verb stems *súkk* “descend” and *ú-kk* “give birth” can be identified as cognates of Nile Nubian *sukk-* “descend” and *u-skir-* “put down, lay down, give birth”; see examples (201) and (203) above.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Midob | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (212) | súkk-ihèm | “I descended” |
|
||||
| | ú-kk-áhèm | “I gave birth” |
|
||||
|
||||
The initial vowel of the Midob verb stem *ú-kk* is assumed to reflect the archaic causative prefix. It is conceivable that due to this prefix and the preferred monosyllabic structure of lexical roots, the unattested bisyllabic verb stem *ú-súkk* has undergone some changes involving the deletion of the second vowel and the fricative /s/. The deletion of /s/ before /k/ is observed in other Midob lexical items: e.g., *ùkúdí* “dust, sand” ← PN *\*Vskidi*; and *úfúdí ~ úkúdí* ← PN *\*VskVdi.*[^213] The fact that the geminated velar of *súkk* is retained in *ú-kk* corroborates the assumed derivational relationship between these two stems.
|
||||
The initial vowel of the Midob verb stem *ú-kk* is assumed to reflect the archaic causative prefix. It is conceivable that due to this prefix and the preferred monosyllabic structure of lexical roots, the unattested bisyllabic verb stem *ú-súkk* has undergone some changes involving the deletion of the second vowel and the fricative /s/. The deletion of /s/ before /k/ is also observed in other Midob lexical items: e.g., *ùkúdí* “dust, sand” < PN *\*Vskidi*; and *úfúdí ~ úkúdí* < PN *\*VskVdi.*[^213] The fact that the geminated velar of *súkk* is retained in *ú-kk* corroborates the assumed derivational relationship between these two stems.
|
||||
|
||||
[^213]: Jakobi, “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants,” p. 220.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1602,7 +1601,7 @@ As in the Nubian languages, verbal derivational extensions in Ama are usually su
|
|||
| (213) | a-t̪os/a-kwos | “suckle” | t̪os/kwos | “suck” |
|
||||
| (214) | a-mɔ | “raise” | mɔ | “rise” |
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson points out that the a-marked causative may “also be combined with the ɪg form,”[^218] which apparently has a causative function as well. Tucker & Bryan, too, note that the causative *a*-prefix is sometimes combined with the *‑ɪg*- and *‑ɛg*-extensions and that, in addition to the causative function, these suffixes express the meaning of “action directed towards.”[^219] For this reason, Norton uses the term “directional” rather than causative.[^220] For the *‑ɪd*-suffix on tam see [6.7](#67).
|
||||
Stevenson points out that the *a*-marked causative may “also be combined with the *ɪg* form,”[^218] which apparently has a causative function as well. Tucker & Bryan, too, note that the causative *a*-prefix is sometimes combined with the *‑ɪg*- and *‑ɛg*-extensions and that, in addition to the causative function, these suffixes express the meaning of “action directed towards.”[^219] For this reason, Norton uses the term “directional” rather than causative.[^220] For the *‑ɪd*-suffix on *tam* see [6.7](#67).
|
||||
|
||||
[^218]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: 179.
|
||||
[^219]: Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* p. 245.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1681,7 +1680,7 @@ As for Mattokki, Massenbach points out that the passive extension is realized as
|
|||
{r} “he is not called”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Abdel-Hafiz only mentions the *-takk* variant and its allomorph *-cakk* which is used after *c.* It can be used with transitive verbs, but also with intransitive verbs such as neer “sleep.”[^230]
|
||||
Abdel-Hafiz only mentions the *-takk* variant and its allomorph *-cakk* which is used after *c.* It can be used with transitive verbs, but also with intransitive verbs such as *neer* “sleep.”[^230]
|
||||
|
||||
[^230]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 111f.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1716,7 +1715,7 @@ As for the origin of the passive extensions various suggestions have been advanc
|
|||
[^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.”
|
||||
* ii) Andaandi *katt* “wrap, role (cigarette)” corresponds to Nobiin kand “wrap, dress” or takk with the same meaning.
|
||||
* ii) 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1728,17 +1727,17 @@ Given the fact that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and Old Nubian -ⲧⲁⲕ have a CVC-shape
|
|||
|
||||
Passive markers often have a verbal origin, as shown by the English *be-* and *get*-passives and the German *werden*-passive. Therefore, we follow Reinisch’s and Armbruster’s suggestions assuming that the passive extensions originate from two semantically related verbs, “wrap, wind” and “be covered.” It is conceivable that Andaandi *-katt* originates from *kant* “wrap, wind,” a verb attested both in Nobiin and Andaandi,[^240] particularly because the gemination of *tt* resulting from the regressive assimilation of *n* to *t* is also attested in the lexical variants *sunti* and *sutti* “hoof, fingernail.”[^241]
|
||||
|
||||
It is also possible that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* as well as Matokki *‑takk* are based on *tag* “get covered”[^242] incremented by the extension *‑k,* i.e., *-tag-k → -takk.* In the course of grammaticalization the initial *t* may have undergone weakening, i.e., *t → d* which has led to the realization of *‑takk* as *‑dakk.* It is also conceivable that during the assumed grammaticalization process, one of the Nobiin varieties retained *tag* without extending it by *–k*. Considering that the initial and final consonant of *tag* may have been weakened, i.e., *t → d* and *g → ŋ,* it is possible that this variant of the passive extensions has come to be realized as *‑daŋ.*
|
||||
It is also possible that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* as well as Matokki *‑takk* are based on *tag* “get covered”[^242] incremented by the extension *‑k,* i.e., *-tag-k > -takk.* In the course of grammaticalization the initial *t* may have undergone weakening, i.e., *t > d* which has led to the realization of *‑takk* as *‑dakk.* It is also conceivable that during the assumed grammaticalization process, one of the Nobiin varieties retained *tag* without extending it by *–k*. Considering that the initial and final consonant of *tag* may have been weakened, i.e., *t > d* and *g > ŋ,* it is possible that this variant of the passive extensions has come to be realized as *‑daŋ.*
|
||||
|
||||
[^240]: Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877-78,* p. 223.
|
||||
[^240]: Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78,* p. 223.
|
||||
[^241]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 388.
|
||||
[^242]: This verb is attested in all Nile Nubian languages: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* p. 163; Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 215; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 192. Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877-78,* p. 249 lists the transitive counterpart *tag-ir* “cover,” German “bedecken.”
|
||||
[^242]: This verb is attested in all Nile Nubian languages: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* p. 163; Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 215; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 192. Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78,* p. 249 lists the transitive counterpart *tag-ir* “cover,” German “bedecken.”
|
||||
|
||||
Of course, we cannot exclude that Andaandi *‑katt* does not originate from *kant* but rather from the metathesis of *‑takk → -katt* (even though the motivation for this phonotactic change is as yet unclear). That suggestion has the advantage of conceiving the passive extensions in the Nile Nubian languages to have a common origin in a single verb, *tag* “get covered.” The semantic notions of this intransitive verb fit well with its grammaticalization as a passive marker.
|
||||
Of course, we cannot exclude that Andaandi *‑katt* does not originate from *kant* but rather from the metathesis of *‑takk > -katt* (even though the motivation for this phonotactic change is as yet unclear). That suggestion has the advantage of conceiving the passive extensions in the Nile Nubian languages to have a common origin in a single verb, *tag* “get covered.” The semantic notions of this intransitive verb fit well with its grammaticalization as a passive marker.
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike the Nile Nubian languages, the Kordofan Nubian languages do not have a dedicated passive extension. Rather, as Comfort and Jakobi have shown,[^243] the passive and other non-basic intransitive constructions are based on verbal plural stems (see [6.5](#65)).
|
||||
|
||||
[^243]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language"; Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).”
|
||||
[^243]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language”; Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).”
|
||||
|
||||
As for Midob, Werner denies that there is “a real passive.”[^245] He points out that semantically passive notions are either expressed by a stative or a [3pl]({sc}) active verb form. The latter option is cross-linguistically quite common, it also exists in Old Nubian and Nobiin.[^246] As the [3pl]({sc}) element “is not understood to refer to any specific group of individuals,”[^248] it is known as “generalized subject” or “impersonal.”[^249]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1771,7 +1770,7 @@ The plural object extensions *‑ir* and *‑(i)r-ir* are restricted to Mattokki
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(230)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *ar*,[1pl]({sc})|*el-ir-r-un*,find-[ploj-neut-1pl]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “we find them"
|
||||
{r} “we find them”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Armbruster observes that Andaandi *‑ir,* which is sometimes reduplicated and realized as [irir], additionally has distributive connotations since it is “used when the verb’s object is a plural that is regarded as a series of singulars.”[^253] But when discussing (231) and (232), mother tongue speaker El-Shafie El-Guzuuli pointed out that he does not perceive a semantic difference between them.[^254]
|
||||
|
|
@ -1781,13 +1780,13 @@ Armbruster observes that Andaandi *‑ir,* which is sometimes reduplicated and r
|
|||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(231)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Andaandi**
|
||||
{g} *in-gu-gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke-rir*,take-[ploj]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “take each of these away!”
|
||||
{g} *in-gu=gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke-rir*,take-[ploj]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “take (each of) these away!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(232)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *in-gu-gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke*,take|
|
||||
{r} “take each of these away!”
|
||||
{g} *in-gu=gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke*,take|
|
||||
{r} “take (each of) these away!”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike the reduplicated causative *‑ir-ir*-extension, which is realized as [iddi], the reduplicated plural object extension *‑(i)r-ir* is never pronounced as [iddi]. This finding supports Armbruster’s assumption that the plural object extension is not identical in origin with the causative *\*-(i)r*-extension (see [2.1](#21)).[^255]
|
||||
|
|
@ -1796,7 +1795,7 @@ Unlike the reduplicated causative *‑ir-ir*-extension, which is realized as [id
|
|||
|
||||
## The Kordofan Nubian and Midob Plural Stem Extension *‑er* {#63}
|
||||
|
||||
Another verbal number marking device is represented by the highly productive extension *-er* (glossed as [plr]({sc})). It is confined to the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob. Kauczor was not only the first to recognize the Dilling prefixes *u-* and *o-* (§5.1), he also noticed that the Dilling *‑er*-extension is used in four distinct grammatical contexts:[^256]
|
||||
Another verbal number marking device is represented by the highly productive extension *-er* (glossed as [plr]({sc})). It is confined to the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob. Kauczor was not only the first to recognize the Dilling prefixes *u-* and *o-* ([5.1](#51)), he also noticed that the Dilling *‑er*-extension is used in four distinct grammatical contexts:[^256]
|
||||
|
||||
[^256]: Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* §252.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1901,9 +1900,9 @@ Midob *‑er* is obviously a cognate of the Kordofan Nubian *‑er*-extension. W
|
|||
| | Midob | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (251) | tèl-ér-hàm |“they sat down” (several people) |
|
||||
| (252) |tèkk-ér-íc | “stop!" [itr imp 2pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (253) |tìr-îc | “give to him!" [imp 2pl]({sc})|
|
||||
| (254) | tìr-èr-îc| “give to them!" [imp 2pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (252) |tèkk-ér-íc | “stop!” [itr imp 2pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (253) |tìr-îc | “give to him!” [imp 2pl]({sc})|
|
||||
| (254) | tìr-èr-îc| “give to them!” [imp 2pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
Interestingly, the Kordofan Nubian and Midob *‑er*-extension is phonetically and semantically comparable to the Ama *‑r*-suffix, which, according to Norton, has distributive connotations, i.e., it distributes the event either over several object referents or over a series of sub-events.[^267] It is always preceded by another distributive suffix, *‑Vd̪,* and the theme vowel *a.* The resulting complex *‑Vd̪-a-r*-suffix in Ama corresponds to the Afitti verbal plural suffix *(-tə)-r.* As distributivity is closely associated with plurality, it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob plural stem extension *‑er* is a cognate of Ama *(-Vd̪-a)-r* and Afitti *(-tə)-r*. Moreover, these extensions may be related to the Mattokki and Andaandi extensions *‑ir* and *‑(i)r-ir,* which are sensitive to plural objects and distributive events (see [6.2](#62)). The different but semantically related functions of these extensions – verbal plural, distributive, plural object – indicate that this extension is of considerable age.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1924,7 +1923,7 @@ Whereas the Nile Nubian languages and Midob express reciprocal notions lexically
|
|||
{r} “the people seized each other”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
In Karko the reciprocal extension has several allomorphs. Because of its underspecified vowel the extension *‑Vn* adopts the quality of the stem vowel. As in Tagle, the reciprocal is attached to the plural verb stem. In the past it requires the intransitive past marker *-ɲj.*
|
||||
In Karko the reciprocal extension has several allomorphs. Because of its underspecified vowel the extension *‑Vn* adopts the quality of the stem vowel. As in Tagle, the reciprocal is attached to the plural verb stem, which signals low transitivity. In the past it requires the intransitive past marker *-ɲj.*
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(257)" >}}
|
||||
{r} **Karko**
|
||||
|
|
@ -1943,28 +1942,28 @@ The Kordofan Nubian languages are rich in verbal number marking devices. In addi
|
|||
|
||||
| | Dilling | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (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-i | id., [sj pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (260) | dil | “gather” [itr, sj pl]({sc}) | dil-t-ig | id., [sj pl, rpt]({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}) |
|
||||
| (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 (263) *dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́*. While (261) and (262) display [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms marked by a final *‑i,* (263) and (264) illustrate 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 | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
|
||||
Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including *‑tVg, ‑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]
|
||||
|
||||
[^272]: Dimmendaal, “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories,” p. 73.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Karko | | | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (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}) |
|
||||
| (267) | nwàá-r | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nwàà-kàn | id., [sj pl]({sc}) | dòɕ | id., [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}) |
|
||||
| (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).
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2039,7 +2038,7 @@ Interestingly, most of the participles illustrated here exhibit a marked plural
|
|||
|
||||
As for the Midob *‑át*-extension, we suggest an analysis different from Werner’s. On first sight, (279)–(281) support his claim that *‑(r)ati* derives reflexive verbs.[^277]
|
||||
|
||||
[^277]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 53. This suffix is *‑r-at,* rather than *-rati,* because the final *-i* is an epenthetic vowel which is part of the following morpheme. The vowel prevents the unadmitted consonant sequences of *‑h* preceded by a consonant.
|
||||
[^277]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 53. This suffix is *‑r-at,* rather than *-rati,* because the final *-i* is an epenthetic vowel which is part of the following morpheme. The vowel prevents the unadmitted sequences of *‑h* preceded by a consonant.
|
||||
|
||||
| | Midob | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -2047,7 +2046,7 @@ As for the Midob *‑át*-extension, we suggest an analysis different from Werne
|
|||
| (280) |tə̀g-ə̀n-dóo-h-èm | “I covered” [tr]({sc}) | tə̀g-rát-ìh-èm | “I covered myself” [refl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| (281) | pìss-ìr-h-êm | “I have sprinkled” [tr]({sc}) |pìss-ìrát-íh-èm | “I sprinkled myself” [refl]({sc}) |
|
||||
|
||||
However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not express reflexive notions.[^278] They suggest that *‑r-at* is a complex morpheme composed of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(a)r* plus *‑at.* Whereas the first component looks like a reflex of the causative *\*-(i)r,* the second component *‑at* can be identified as a valency-decreasing device deriving intransitive from transitive verbs.
|
||||
However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not express reflexive notions.[^278] They suggest that *‑r-at* is a complex morpheme composed of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(a)r* plus *‑át.* Whereas the first component looks like a reflex of the causative *\*-(i)r,* the second component *‑át* can be identified as a valency-decreasing device deriving intransitive from transitive verbs.
|
||||
|
||||
[^278]: Ibid., pp. 110 and 136.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2060,7 +2059,7 @@ However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not exp
|
|||
|
||||
It is still conceivable that *‑at* can also trigger a reflexive interpretation, especially when it is attached to verbs with an animate and agentive subject such as “wash,” “cover,” and “sprinkle.”
|
||||
|
||||
If Kordofan Nubian *‑ad̪* and Midob *‑át* are cognate valency-decreasing morphemes, are they related to the passive extensions, Old Nubian *‑tak* and Nobiin *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ*? Although the metathesis of *-ad̪ → -d̪a* and *‑át → -tá* is conceivable, none of these suffixes exhibits a velar which would match the final consonants of *‑tak* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ.* For this reason, there is too little evidence supporting the assumption of a common origin of these extensions.
|
||||
If Kordofan Nubian *‑ad̪* and Midob *‑át* are cognate valency-decreasing morphemes, are they related to the passive extensions, Old Nubian *‑tak* and Nobiin *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ*? Although the metathesis of *-ad̪ > -d̪a* and *‑át > -tá* is conceivable, none of these suffixes exhibits a velar which would match the final consonants of *‑tak* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ.* For this reason, there is too little evidence supporting the assumption of a common origin of these extensions.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Midob *‑íd*-Extension {#67}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2081,9 +2080,9 @@ Werner, in turn, recognizes this suffix as *‑íd,* ending in an alveolar [d].[
|
|||
|
||||
| | | | | |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| (287) | úkk-ánònùm |“she has given birth” | ukk-íd-ánònùm | “she has given birth (to many children)” |
|
||||
| (287) | úkk-ánònùm |“she has given birth” | úkk-íd-ánònùm | “she has given birth (to many children)” |
|
||||
|
||||
A phonetically and semantically similar *VC*-shaped extension is attested in Ama by *‑ɪ́d̪.* According to Norton, the Ama extension *‑ɪ́d̪* has a distributive function.[^283] It is sensitive to a plural object participant, as shown in (289) or to a plural subject participant as in (290). Moreover, it can express an event distributed in time over a series of sub-events, as in (291). Norton considers ‑ɪ́d̪, with these distributional functions, as a type of pluractional.[^284]
|
||||
A phonetically and semantically similar VC-shaped extension is attested in Ama by *‑ɪ́d̪.* According to Norton, the Ama extension *‑ɪ́d̪* has a distributive function.[^283] It is sensitive to a plural object participant, as shown in (289) or to a plural subject participant as in (290). Moreover, it can express an event distributed in time over a series of sub-events, as in (291). Norton considers *‑ɪ́d̪,* with these distributional functions, as a type of pluractional.[^284]
|
||||
|
||||
[^283]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs.”
|
||||
[^284]: . Examples from Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 77 and 78.
|
||||
|
|
@ -2105,8 +2104,7 @@ A phonetically and semantically similar *VC*-shaped extension is attested in Ama
|
|||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(291)" >}}
|
||||
{g} *ə̀ŋí*,[1pl]({sc})|
|
||||
*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*dɔ̄rɛŋ*,children|*mʊ̄l*,five|*dɛ̄-ɪ́d̪-ɪ́*,hit-[dstr-th]({sc})|
|
||||
{g} *ə̀ŋí*,[1pl]({sc})|*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*dɔ̄rɛŋ*,children|*mʊ̄l*,five|*dɛ̄-ɪ́d̪-ɪ́*,hit-[dstr-th]({sc})|
|
||||
{r} “we hit until we had hit five children”
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2116,7 +2114,7 @@ Midob is spoken in Darfur and Ama in the Nuba Mountains. In view of the geograph
|
|||
|
||||
# Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
If we disregard the predicable epenthetic vowel, we recognize that six of the seven reconstructable derivational extensions either consist of a single consonant *C* or of a *CV(V)C*-pattern. While the *C*-shaped extensions include *\*‑(i)r,* the pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* and the plural stem extension *\*‑(i)k,* the *CV(V)C* pattern is represented by the causative morpheme *\*‑(i)gir* and the applicative morphemes *\*tir* and *\*deen*. This pattern coincides with the canonical syllable pattern of Nubian lexical roots, thus corroborating the assumed origin of *\*(i)gir, \*tir,* and *\*deen* from lexical items, or, more precisely, from lexical verbs.
|
||||
If we disregard the predicable epenthetic vowel, we recognize that six of the seven reconstructable derivational extensions either consist of a single consonant C or of a CV(V)C pattern. While the C-shaped extensions include *\*‑(i)r,* the pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* and the plural stem extension *\*‑(i)k,* the CV(V)C pattern is represented by the causative morpheme *\*‑(i)gir* and the applicative morphemes *\*tir* and *\*deen*. The latter pattern coincides with the canonical syllable pattern of Nubian lexical roots, thus corroborating the assumed origin of *\*(i)gir, \*tir,* and *\*deen* from lexical items, or, more precisely, from lexical verbs.
|
||||
|
||||
Whereas *\*‑(i)r, \*‑(i)j, \*‑(i)k, \*‑(i)gir, \*tir,* and *\*deen* can be traced back to Proto-Nubian, the causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix and its cognate, the Ama *a*-prefix, are assumed to originate from the archaic Nilo-Saharan *\*i*-. As reflexes of this prefix are also attested in several branches of Eastern Sudanic and in Central Sudanic, they prove to be historically stable derivational morphemes which corroborate the assumed genetic coherence of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, as Dimmendaal argues.[^286] Moreover, the prefixes suggest that these languages have changed from an originally prefixing to a predominantly suffixing type. Another indicator of this conversion process is the archaic Nubian *\*m*-prefix, which used to serve as a negation marker.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2128,15 +2126,15 @@ A manifestation of language change is the grammaticalization of the causative ex
|
|||
|
||||
Another instance of grammaticalization is the assumed morphological blending of the two donative verbs, resulting in the emergence of the innovative verb *ti.* In the Kordofan Nubian languages *ti* has begun to replace the original donative verbs, particularly in applicative constructions. These distinct stages of grammaticalization indicate that the western Nubian languages have undergone more morphological and syntactic changes than the Nile Nubian languages which have retained the two original verbs.
|
||||
|
||||
Suggesting that the Old Nubian and Nobiin *‑a*-suffix is a converb marker and therefore different from the Old Nubian clitic predicative marker *-a,* we have highlighted some syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages. They can express chains of successive events or even events prior or simultaneous to the event expressed by the main verb. Converbs are also employed as adverbial modifiers of main verbs. In these contexts, converbs are used in symmetric formations, i.e., the converb(s) and the main verb of a clause contribute equally to the expression of two or more events. In an asymmetric converb construction, by contrast, the converb and the adjacent main verb jointly express a single event. Such asymmetric formations are often associated with directed motion or transfer events or with the grammaticalization of the main verb as an aspect-marking or even valency-changing device. The latter is attested by the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages where the second verb is represented by a finite donative verb. This serves as a valence operator commonly licensing an additional argument with the role of a beneficiary.
|
||||
Suggesting that the Old Nubian and Nobiin *‑a*-suffix is a converb marker and therefore different from the Old Nubian clitic predicate marker *-a,* we have highlighted some syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages. They can express chains of successive events or even events prior or simultaneous to the event expressed by the main verb. Converbs are also employed as adverbial modifiers of main verbs. In these contexts, converbs are used in symmetric formations, i.e., the converb(s) and the main verb of a clause contribute equally to the expression of two or more events. In an asymmetric converb construction, by contrast, the converb and the adjacent main verb jointly express a single event. Such asymmetric formations are often associated with directed motion or transfer events or with the grammaticalization of the main verb as an aspect-marking or even valency-changing device. The latter is attested by the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages where the second verb is represented by a finite donative verb. This serves as a valence operator commonly licensing an additional argument with the role of a beneficiary.
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages, applicatives in the Kordofan Nubian and Midob form monoverbal constructions, since “give” has become a derivational morpheme being suffixed to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *‑(i)n*. This means that in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the development of “give” as a bound derivational morpheme has reached a further stage on the grammaticalization path than “give” in the Nile Nubian converb constructions. At least in Andaandi, the auxiliary-like “give” verb is a free form which can be separated from the preceding lexical verb by means of the question clitic *te.*
|
||||
|
||||
Verbal number plays an important role, as it can express event number and participant number. The pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* for instance, conveys event plurality associated with various aspectual notions. In Andaandi, Dilling, and Midob it expresses intensive and repetitive actions, in Tagle repetitive and continued actions, and in Mattokki distributive events. It also has morphosyntactic functions, as indicated by the interaction between the *-(i)j*-marked verb stem and the plural subject in intransitive clauses or the plural object in transitive clauses. In ditransitive applicative constructions the reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is selected by the plural indirect object (i.e., the beneficiary), as attested in the Old Nubian example (144). In Kordofan Nubian ditransitive applicative constructions, however, it is the plural direct object (i.e., the theme) which selects a reflex of *\*‑(i)j,* as shown in the Karko example (179). In transitive clauses *\*‑(i)j* is sensitive to the patient, as shown in the Old Nubian example (154) and Karko example (177). Thus, the selection of the *\*‑(i)j* extension provides evidence of two patterns of alignment. Whereas the patient aligns with the beneficiary in Old Nubian, in Karko the patient aligns with the theme. These two patterns are known as secondary-object construction and indirect-object construction, respectively.[^287]
|
||||
Verbal number plays an important role, as it can express event number and participant number. The pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* for instance, conveys event plurality associated with various aspectual notions. In Andaandi, Dilling, and Midob it expresses intensive and repetitive actions, in Tagle repetitive and continued actions, and in Mattokki distributive events. It also has morphosyntactic functions, as indicated by the interaction between the *-\*(i)j*-marked verb stems and the plural subject in intransitive clauses or the plural object in transitive clauses. In ditransitive applicative constructions the reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is selected by the plural indirect object (i.e., the beneficiary), as attested in the Old Nubian example (144). In Kordofan Nubian ditransitive applicative constructions, however, it is the plural direct object (i.e., the theme) which selects a reflex of *\*‑(i)j,* as shown in the Karko example (179). In transitive clauses *\*‑(i)j* is sensitive to the plural object (patient), as shown in the Old Nubian example (154) and Karko example (177). Thus, the selection of the *\*‑(i)j* extension provides evidence of two patterns of alignment. Whereas the patient aligns with the beneficiary in Old Nubian, in Karko the patient aligns with the theme. These two patterns are known as secondary-object construction and indirect-object construction, respectively.[^287]
|
||||
|
||||
[^287]: Haspelmath, “Ditransitive Constructions,” Jakobi, Ibrahim & Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.”
|
||||
|
||||
Verbal number marking in the Kordofan Nubian languages is far more complex than in the Nile Nubian languages. It is carried out by means of several formal strategies, including a variety of suffixes which may be combined with each other and with the alternation of the stem vowel and tone pattern. The morphological complexity of this system suggests that it is rather instable.[^288] In addition to expressing event number and participant number, Kordofan Nubian plural stems can even serve as valency-decreasing devices in agent-preserving and patient-preserving clauses which can even convey facilitative and passive meanings.
|
||||
Verbal number marking in the Kordofan Nubian languages is far more complex than in the Nile Nubian languages. It is carried out by means of several formal strategies, including a variety of suffixes which may be combined with each other and with the alternation of the stem vowel and tone pattern. The morphological complexity of this system suggests that it is rather instable.[^288] In addition to expressing event number and participant number, Kordofan Nubian plural stems can even serve as valency-decreasing devices in agent-preserving and patient-preserving clauses which may convey facilitative and passive meanings.
|
||||
|
||||
[^288]: Dimmendaal, “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories,” p. 130.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2146,11 +2144,11 @@ The Kordofan Nubian reciprocal extension *‑in* is comparable to the Ama dual *
|
|||
|
||||
[^289]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix.”
|
||||
|
||||
When we consider that the Proto-Nubian liquid *\*r* is retained in most of its daughter languages, as attested by *\*ur* “head,” *\*m-iir* “barren,” and *\*tir* “give to 2nd or 3rd person,”[^290] it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural suffix *‑er* and the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object *‑ir*- or *‑(i)rir*-extension are cognates. They also appear to correspond to the Ama distributive extension *‑r* and to the *‑r* component of the complex Ama and Afitti extensions *(‑Vd̪‑a)‑r* and *(-tə)-r,* respectively. In addition to the shared *‑r*-suffix, all of these extensions convey the semantic notion of plurality.
|
||||
When we consider that the Proto-Nubian liquid *\*r* is retained in most of its daughter languages, as attested by *\*ur* “head,” *\*m-iir* “barren,” and *\*tir* “give to 2nd or 3rd person,”[^290] it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural suffix *‑er* and the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object *‑ir*- or *‑(i)r-ir*-extension are cognates. They also appear to correspond to the Ama distributive extension *‑r* and to the *‑r* component of the complex Ama and Afitti extensions *(‑Vd̪‑a)‑r* and *(-tə)-r,* respectively. In addition to the shared *‑r*-suffix, all of these extensions convey the semantic notion of plurality.
|
||||
|
||||
[^290]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 230, 231, 244.
|
||||
|
||||
The Midob plural stem extension *‑íd- ~ -ʊd* and the Ama distributive *‑ɪ́d̪* share several features, such as a *VC*-shaped structure, a high vowel, and high tone. Moreover, they are both semantically associated with plurality. Therefore, it seems likely that they have a common genetic origin.
|
||||
The Midob plural stem extension *‑íd- ~ -ʊd* and the Ama distributive *‑ɪ́d̪* share several features, such as a VC-shaped structure, a high vowel, and high tone. Moreover, they are both semantically associated with plurality. Therefore, it seems likely that they have a common genetic origin.
|
||||
|
||||
As bound morphemes are less often subject to borrowing than free morphemes, these corresponding verb extensions point to a remote genetic relationship between Nubian and Nyima, rather than to contact-induced similarities.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2200,7 +2198,7 @@ However, in addition to the suggestive evidence of their old genetic links, ther
|
|||
* PN – Proto-Nubian;
|
||||
* PKN – Proto-Kordofan Nubian;
|
||||
* [ploj]({sc}) – plural object;
|
||||
* [pred]({sc}) – predicative;
|
||||
* [pred]({sc}) – predicate;
|
||||
* [prf]({sc}) – perfect;
|
||||
* [prog]({sc}) – progressive;
|
||||
* [pfv]({sc}) – perfective;
|
||||
|
|
@ -2234,15 +2232,15 @@ Abdel-Hafiz, A.S. *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.* PhD Thesis, State Unive
|
|||
|
||||
Abel, Hans. *Eine Erzählung im Dialekt von Ermenne (Nubien).* Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 29, no. 8. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.
|
||||
|
||||
Almkvist, Herman N. *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877-78.* Edited by K.V. Zetterstéen. Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1911.
|
||||
Almkvist, Herman N. *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78.* Edited by K.V. Zetterstéen. Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1911.
|
||||
|
||||
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. *Serial Verbs.* Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
|
||||
|
||||
Ameka, Felix K. “Ewe Serial Verb Constructions in Their Grammatical Context.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology,* edited by A.Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 124–143.
|
||||
Ameka, Felix K. “Ewe Serial Verb Constructions in Their Grammatical Context.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 124–143.
|
||||
|
||||
Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Converbs in an African Perspective.” In *Catching Language,* edited by Felix A. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006: pp. 393–440.
|
||||
|
||||
Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 319–337.
|
||||
Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 319–337.
|
||||
|
||||
Armbruster, Charles H. *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2254,7 +2252,7 @@ Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. “Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Ber
|
|||
|
||||
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. *The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change.* Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, M. Lionel. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *African Languages: An Introduction,* edited by B. Heine & D. Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 43–75.
|
||||
Bender, M. Lionel. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *African Languages: An Introduction,* edited by Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 43–75.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, M. Lionel. *The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay.* Munich: Lincom Europa, 1996.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2266,7 +2264,7 @@ Browne, Gerald M. *Old Nubian Grammar.* Munich: Lincom Europa, 2002.
|
|||
|
||||
Browne, Gerald M. *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas.* Vienna-Mödling: Verein der Förderer der Sudanforschung, 1994.
|
||||
|
||||
Comfort, Jade. “Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 381-400.
|
||||
Comfort, Jade. “Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 381–400.
|
||||
|
||||
Comfort, Jade. “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2282,7 +2280,7 @@ Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of Afric
|
|||
|
||||
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. “On Stable and Unstable Features in Nilo-Saharan.” In *Nilo-Saharan Issues and Perspectives,* edited by H. Schröder & P. Jerono. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 9-23.
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “On Stable and Unstable Features in Nilo-Saharan.” In *Nilo-Saharan Issues and Perspectives,* edited by Helga Schröder & Prisca Jerono. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 9–23.
|
||||
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories.” In *Number – Constructions and Semantics: Case Studies from Africa, Amazonia, India and Oceania,* edited by Anne Storch & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014: pp. 57–75.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2300,33 +2298,33 @@ Greenberg, Joseph H. *The Languages of Africa.* 3rd edition. Bloomington: Indian
|
|||
|
||||
Grüning, Manfred. *A Sketch of the Midob Verbal Morphology.* MA Thesis, Redcliffe College, 2014.
|
||||
|
||||
Hashim, Mohamed El-Hadi Hassan. *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii – Shoo Urragi. Nobiin Stories,* Vol. 1. Edited and translated by R. Werner. Berlin: Nubian Press, 2005.
|
||||
Hashim, Mohamed El-Hadi Hassan. *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii – Shoo Urragi. Nobiin Stories,* Vol. 1. Edited and translated by Roland Werner. Berlin: Nubian Press, 2005.
|
||||
|
||||
Haspelmath, Martin. “The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology.” *Studies in Language* 14, no. 1 (1990): pp. 25–72.
|
||||
|
||||
Haspelmath, Martin. “Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/105.
|
||||
Haspelmath, Martin. “Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/105.
|
||||
|
||||
Hintze, Fritz. “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II.” *Berliner Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie* 20, no. 3 (1971): pp. 287-293.
|
||||
Hintze, Fritz. “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II.” *Berliner Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie* 20, no. 3 (1971): pp. 287–293.
|
||||
|
||||
Hopper, Paul J. “Where Do Words Come From?” In *Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday,* edited by W. Croft, K.M. Denning, S. Kemmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990: pp. 151–160.
|
||||
Hopper, Paul J. “Where Do Words Come From?” In *Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday,* edited by William Croft, Keith M. Denning & Suzanne Kemmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990: pp. 151–160.
|
||||
|
||||
Hopper, Paul J. & S.A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” *Language* 56, no. 2 (1980): pp. 251–299.
|
||||
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” *Language* 56, no. 2 (1980): pp. 251–299.
|
||||
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika. “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture,* edited by A. Abu-Manga, L. Gilley & A. Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228.
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika. “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” 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. “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).” *Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung* 70, no. 1 (2017): pp. 117–142.
|
||||
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika & J. Crass. *Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne).* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2004.
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika & Joachim Crass. *Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne).* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2004.
|
||||
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika & El-Shafie El-Guzuuli. “Perception Verbs and Their Semantics in Dongolawi (Nile Nubian).” In *Perception and Cognition in Language and Culture,* edited by Anne Storch & Alexandra Aikhenvald. Leiden: Brill, 2013: pp. 193–215.
|
||||
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika & Ali Ibrahim. “Labile Verbs in Tagle (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrti J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 99-127.
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika & Ali Ibrahim. “Labile Verbs in Tagle (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 99–127.
|
||||
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika, Ali Ibrahim & Ibrahim Gulfan. “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” *Faits de Langues/Journal of Language Diversity.* Forthcoming.
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika, Ali Ibrahim & Gumma Ibrahim Gulfan. “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” *Faits de Langues/Journal of Language Diversity* 51, no. 1 (2020): pp. 99–116.
|
||||
|
||||
Kauczor, P. Daniel. *Die bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Gebel Deleṅ).* Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920.
|
||||
|
||||
Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer. “Passive in the World’s Languages.” In *Language Typology and Syntactic Description,* Vol. 1: *Clause Structure,* edited by T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007: pp. 325–361.
|
||||
Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer. “Passive in the World’s Languages.” In *Language Typology and Syntactic Description,* Vol. 1: *Clause Structure,* edited by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007: pp. 325–361.
|
||||
|
||||
Khalil, Mohamed K. “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin (Nile Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 59–71.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2336,17 +2334,17 @@ Massenbach, Gertrud von. “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes mit eine
|
|||
|
||||
Mufwene, Salikoko S. *Stativity and the Progressive.* Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984.
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell. “Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): .
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell. “Number in Ama Verbs.” *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–93.
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell. . “The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.” In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122.
|
||||
Norton, Russell. “The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.” In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122.
|
||||
|
||||
Norton Russell. “Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): .
|
||||
|
||||
Noonan, Michael. “Genetic Classification and Language Contact.” In *Handbook of Language Contact,* edited by R. Hickey. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: pp. 48–65.
|
||||
Noonan, Michael. “Genetic Classification and Language Contact.” In *Handbook of Language Contact,* edited by Raymond Hickey. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: pp. 48–65.
|
||||
|
||||
Pointner, Lena. “Verbal Number in Tabaq.” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 77–97.
|
||||
|
||||
Rapold, Christian J. “Defining Converbs Ten Years On – A Hitchhikers’ Guide.” In *Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues,* edited by S. Völlmin, A. Amha, C.J. Rapold & S. Zaugg-Coretti. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag: pp. 7-30.
|
||||
Rapold, Christian J. “Defining Converbs Ten Years On – A Hitchhikers’ Guide.” In *Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues,* edited by Sascha Völlmin, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold & Silvia Zaugg-Coretti. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2012: pp. 7–30.
|
||||
|
||||
Reinisch, Leo. *Die Nuba-Sprache*. 2 vols. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1879.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2358,27 +2356,27 @@ Rilly, Claude. *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* Leuven: Peeters, 20
|
|||
|
||||
Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi. “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269.
|
||||
|
||||
Slobin, Dan I. “What Makes Manner of Motion Verbs Salient? Explorations in Linguistic Typology, Discourse and Cognition.” In *Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories,* edited by Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: pp. 59-81.
|
||||
Slobin, Dan I. “What Makes Manner of Motion Verbs Salient? Explorations in Linguistic Typology, Discourse and Cognition.” In *Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories,* edited by Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: pp. 59–81.
|
||||
|
||||
Smagina, Eugenia B. *The Old Nubian Language.* Translated by José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente. Dotawo Monograph 3. Earth: punctum books, 2017.
|
||||
|
||||
Starostin, George. “Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I: On the Genetic Unity of Nubian–Nara–Tama.” *Journal of Language Relationship* 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.” *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73-84, 93-115.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.” *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27-65, 117-152, 171-196.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5-64.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64.
|
||||
|
||||
Thelwall, Robin. “Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.” 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.” 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. “Meidob Nubian: Phonology, Grammatical Notes and Basic Vocabulary.” In *Nilo-Saharan Language Studies,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1983: pp. 97–113.
|
||||
|
||||
Tucker, A.N. & M.A. Bryan. *Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.* London: Oxford University Press, 1966.
|
||||
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. *Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.* London: Oxford University Press, 1966.
|
||||
|
||||
Veselinova, L.N. “Verbal Number and Suppletion.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/80.
|
||||
Veselinova, Ljuba N. “Verbal Number and Suppletion.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/80.
|
||||
|
||||
Voogt, Alexander J. de. “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911.
|
||||
Voogt, Alex de. “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911.
|
||||
|
||||
Werner, Roland. *Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Phonologie, Tonologie und Morphologie.* Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -2386,4 +2384,4 @@ Werner, Roland. *Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).* Berlin: Dietrich
|
|||
|
||||
Werner, Roland. “Ideophones in Nobiin,” unpublished ms presented as hand-out at the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium at Khartoum, 2004.
|
||||
|
||||
Zyhlarz, Ernst. “Die Lautverschiebungen des Nubischen.” *Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen* 35 (1949/50): pp. 1-20, 1 28-146, 280-313.
|
||||
Zyhlarz, Ernst. “Die Lautverschiebungen des Nubischen.” *Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen* 35 (1949/50): pp. 1–20, 128–146, 280–313.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ A role for concreteness in grammar was previously proposed in the Pirahã langu
|
|||
|
||||
Research over the past century has also been gradually clarifying the complex morphological system of Ama verbs.[^32] Factative and progressive aspect are distinguished in the affix system as well as in stems, and there is an evolving portfolio of pluractional affixes.
|
||||
|
||||
[^32]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §XI; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 171-183; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik"; Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs”; Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix"; Norton, "Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.”
|
||||
[^32]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §XI; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 171–183; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik"; Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs”; Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix"; Norton, "Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.”
|
||||
|
||||
## Affix Selection and Order
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural partic
|
|||
|
||||
[^42]: Corbett, *Number,* p. 116.
|
||||
[^43]: 
|
||||
[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115-116.
|
||||
[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115–116.
|
||||
[^45]: Norton, “Number in Ama vVrbs,” pp. 78, 79, 91.
|
||||
[^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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ Beyond the Nyima branch, the Temein “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* shares
|
|||
The confirmation of distributive markers across Nubian, Nyima, and Temein implies that a distributive pluractional was present in Eastern Sudanic from an early stage, with a form like *\*-id.* In Nubian the consonant is palatal,[^50] and although palatals are a difficult area for establishing wider sound correspondences,[^51] the palatal arises in the plausible conditioning environment of a high front vowel.
|
||||
|
||||
[^50]: . Jakobi points that the other very similar suffix *-íd* in Midob cannot be reconstructed to proto-Nubian from just one Nubian language, so appears to be an innovation, and her observation of its similarity to the Ama suffix clearly suggests borrowing into Midob from Ama’s ancestor or another related language. Hence, the reconstructable pluractional **[i]ɟ* is more viable as the historic cognate of the Ama suffix.
|
||||
[^51]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 303-304.
|
||||
[^51]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 303–304.
|
||||
|
||||
### Second Historic Pluractional
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ Some time after the contact with Heiban, Rottland and Jakobi note the likelihood
|
|||
|
||||
This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification in Ama verbs that supports the idea that language contact occurred. Afitti has pronominal subject markers on the verb, seen earlier in **Table 13**, which are absent in Ama. The pronominal prefixes are not the same in form as personal pronoun words in Afitti ([1sg]({sc}) *oi* but [1sg]({sc}) prefix *kə-*),[^68] therefore they are not incorporated versions of the current pronoun words, but rather predate them. Some of the Afitti pronoun words ([1sg]({sc}) *oi,* [2sg]({sc}) *i*)[^69] are similar to Ama ([1sg]({sc}) *àɪ̀,* [2sg]({sc}) *ī*) and must be retentions from proto-Nyima, hence the older pronominal prefixes must also be retentions in Afitti, but lost in Ama. Their loss in Ama is remarkable against the larger trend of growth in complexity of Ama verbs that we have examined in this paper. The predicted cause of this surprising reversal is pidginization under contact. That is, their loss is evidence that the Ama language was used for inter-group communication, presumably with the Kordofan Nubians, during which (and for which) Ama SOV sentences were simplified by dropping verbal subject marking. If Kordofan Nubians spoke Ama, then borrowing from Ama into Kordofan Nubian is also likely. In verbs, the obvious candidate for borrowing into Kordofan Nubian is the reciprocal suffix *-in*, as this is not attested elsewhere in Nubian.[^70] The following two-step scenario would then account for the facts: Ama was learned and used by Kordofan Nubians, during which Ama dropped verbal subject marking and its reciprocal suffix was borrowed into Kordofan Nubian; next, Ama returned to isolation in which the reciprocal suffix developed its dual function that is unique to Ama today.
|
||||
|
||||
[^68]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” pp. 34-38.
|
||||
[^68]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” pp. 34–38.
|
||||
[^69]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177.
|
||||
[^70]: .
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -543,17 +543,17 @@ Everett, Daniel.  In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56.
|
||||
|
||||
Gilley, Leoma.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501-522.
|
||||
Gilley, Leoma.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522.
|
||||
|
||||
Greenberg, Joseph. [*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:df1c2298-341c-4367-a9cf-37452f7e3068) Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963.
|
||||
|
||||
Heine, Bernd & Rainer Voßen. “Sprachtypologie.” In *Die Sprachen Afrikas,* edited by Bernd Heine, Thilo Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981: pp. 407–444.
|
||||
|
||||
Hyman, Larry & Imelda Udoh.  In *Globalization and the Study of Languages in Africa,* edited by Ozo-mekuri Ndimele. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications and Emhai Press, 2005: pp. 297-304.
|
||||
Hyman, Larry & Imelda Udoh.  In *Globalization and the Study of Languages in Africa,* edited by Ozo-mekuri Ndimele. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications and Emhai Press, 2005: pp. 297–304.
|
||||
|
||||
Jakobi, Angelika. *Kordofan Nubian: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study.* Unpublished manuscript, 2013.
|
||||
|
||||
Kröger, Oliver.  In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17-21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Marie Fehn. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2012: pp. 155–168.
|
||||
Kröger, Oliver.  In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17–21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Marie Fehn. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2012: pp. 155–168.
|
||||
|
||||
Laca, Brenda.  In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87–92.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ Newman, Paul.  In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig and Gerrit Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2019: pp. 417–446.
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell.  *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75-94.
|
||||
Norton, Russell.  *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75–94.
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell.  In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -575,9 +575,9 @@ Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi.  Utrecht: LOT, 2017.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland C.  *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland.  Unpublished typescript, 1938.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load diff
|
|
@ -113,14 +113,14 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
|
|||
* “bird”: N *kawar-ti*, K *kawir-te*, D *kawɪr-tɛ* (= M *àːbéd-dí*, B *kwar-ti*, etc.).
|
||||
* “bite”: N *àc-*, K/D *acc-* (= M *àcc-*, Dl *aɟ*, etc.).
|
||||
* “black”: N *úrúm*, K/D *urumm*- (= M *údí*, B *úːdè*, Dl *uri*, etc.). ◊ The Nile-Nubian form is an original nominal derivate (*\*ur-um* “darkness”) from the adjectival stem *\*ur*- “black.”
|
||||
* “bone”: N *gìsìr*, K *kiːd*, D *kɪhɪːd* (= M *ə̀ːdí*, B *kìzídì*, etc.). ◊ Voiced *g-* in Nile-Nubian is irregular, possibly as a result of assimilation (← *\*kizir*) or contamination.[^13]
|
||||
* “bone”: N *gìsìr*, K *kiːd*, D *kɪhɪːd* (= M *ə̀ːdí*, B *kìzídì*, etc.). ◊ Voiced *g-* in Nile-Nubian is irregular, possibly as a result of assimilation (< *\*kizir*) or contamination.[^13]
|
||||
* “breast”: N *óg*, K/D *og* (= M *ə́ː*, B *ogi*, Dl *ɔki*, etc.).
|
||||
* “claw/nail”: N *sun-ti*, K *sutti*, D *sun-tɪ* (= M *súŋún-dí*, B *sun-di*, etc.).
|
||||
* “cold”: N *ór-kí*, K *oroːke-l*, D *oroːfɛ-l* (= Wali *ór-kō*, Debri *worr-uŋ*, etc.).
|
||||
* “die”: N *dí-*, K/D *diː* (= M *tíː-*, B *ti-n-*, Dl *ti*, etc.).
|
||||
* “drink”: N *ní-*, K/D *niː* (= M *tìː-*, B *ɲiː*, Dl *di*, etc.). ◊ From PN *\*ni-* with regular denasalization in M and Hill Nubian languages.
|
||||
* “ear”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug* (= Dl *ulɟe*, M *úlgí*, etc.). ◊ From PN *\*ulg-i*. The Nobiin form goes back to ON *ul(u)g-* and shows a specific phonetic development (*\*-lg-* → *-kk-*); the latter, however, can in no way be construed as an archaism.
|
||||
* (?) “eye”: N *máːɲ* (= ON *maɲ-*), D *mɪssɪ*, K *missi* (= M *pì-dì*). ◊ A complicated case. The K/D forms perfectly correspond to M *pì-dì*, going back to PN *\*miC-ti*, where *-C-* is one of several consonants capable of triggering the lenition *\*-t- → -s-* in K/D. If *\*-C- = \*-ɲ-*, then the forms are further comparable with N *máːɲ*, and we are either dealing with a one-time vocalic dissimilation *\*miɲ → \*maɲ* in N or two independent assimilations (*\*maɲ → miɲ-*) in M and K/D, respectively. Alternately, the N form may be completely unrelated to the K/D–M isogloss, in which case the word should be moved to group III.2, since a separate form like *\*maɲ* “eye” would have no Common Nubian etymology of its own.
|
||||
* “ear”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug* (= Dl *ulɟe*, M *úlgí*, etc.). ◊ From PN *\*ulg-i*. The Nobiin form goes back to ON *ul(u)g-* and shows a specific phonetic development (*\*-lg-* > *-kk-*); the latter, however, can in no way be construed as an archaism.
|
||||
* (?) “eye”: N *máːɲ* (= ON *maɲ-*), D *mɪssɪ*, K *missi* (= M *pì-dì*). ◊ A complicated case. The K/D forms perfectly correspond to M *pì-dì*, going back to PN *\*miC-ti*, where *-C-* is one of several consonants capable of triggering the lenition *\*-t- > -s-* in K/D. If *\*-C- = \*-ɲ-*, then the forms are further comparable with N *máːɲ*, and we are either dealing with a one-time vocalic dissimilation *\*miɲ > \*maɲ* in N or two independent assimilations (*\*maɲ > miɲ-*) in M and K/D, respectively. Alternately, the N form may be completely unrelated to the K/D–M isogloss, in which case the word should be moved to group III.2, since a separate form like *\*maɲ* “eye” would have no Common Nubian etymology of its own.
|
||||
* “fire”: N *íːg*, K *iːg*, D *ɪːg* (= Dl *ike*, Debri *ika*; probably also B *uzug*, M *ússí*). ◊ The forms in B and M are comparable if the original stem is to be reconstructed as *\*usi-gi*, with regular elimination of intervocalic *\*-s-* in Hill and Nile Nubian. The vocalism is still problematic, but even without the B and M forms, parallels in Hill Nubian clearly show that the Nile-Nubian items represent an inherited archaism.
|
||||
* “foot”: N *óːy*, K *ossi*, D *oss(ɪ)* (= B *ose*, M *òttì*). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*oy(-ti)*.
|
||||
* “give”: N *tèː-r*, K *ti-r*, D *tɪ-r* (= M *tì-*, B *teː-n*, Dl *ti*, etc.).
|
||||
|
|
@ -140,18 +140,18 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
|
|||
* “not”: N *-mùːn*, K/D *-mun-* (= Dl *-min*, B *-m-*, etc.). ◊ A common Nubian negative verbal stem (interestingly, not attested in M, which instead uses the suffixal morpheme *-áː-* for negation, something that could be construed as an archaism and used as a serious argument against early separation of Nobiin).
|
||||
* “one”: N *wèːr ~ wèːl*, K *weːr*, D *wɛːr* (= M *pàr-*, B *meːl-*, Dl *be*, etc.).
|
||||
* “person”: N *íd* (= M *ír*, Dl *id*, etc.). ◊ The old Nubian root is largely replaced by Arabisms in K/D (K *zoːl*, D *adɛm*), but the word *ɪd* is still used in D as an archaism or in various idiomatic formations.
|
||||
* “rain”: N *áwwí*, K *a-nn-essi* (← *\*aru-n-essi* “rain-waterʼ), D *aru* (= M *áré*, B *aːle*, Dl *are*, etc.). ◊ The development *\*-r- → -w-* in N is regular before *\*-i*.[^14]
|
||||
* “rain”: N *áwwí*, K *a-nn-essi* (< *\*aru-n-essi* “rain-waterʼ), D *aru* (= M *áré*, B *aːle*, Dl *are*, etc.). ◊ The development *\*-r- > -w-* in N is regular before *\*-i*.[^14]
|
||||
* “red”: N *géːl*, K *geːle*, D *gɛːlɛ* (= M *kéːlé*, B *keːle*, Dl *kele*, etc.).
|
||||
* “sand”: N *síw*, K *siːw*, D *sɪu* (= Dl *šu-d*, Debri *šu-du*, etc.).
|
||||
* “see”: N *nèːl*, K/D *nal* (= M *kə̀l-*, B *ell-*, Dl *gel*, Kadaru *ŋeli*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ŋali-*.
|
||||
* “sit”: (a) N *àːg-*, K/D *aːg* (= M *àːg-*, Dl *ak-i*, etc.); (b) N *tìːg-*, K *teːg*, D *tɛːg* (= M *tə́g-*). ◊ Two roots with very close semantics, both easily reconstructible back to PN.
|
||||
* “sleep”: N *nèːr-*, K *neːr*, D *nɛːr* (= M *kèrà-*, B *neːri*, Dl *ɟer*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ɲɛːr-*.
|
||||
* “star”: N *wìnɟì*, K *wissi*, D *wɪssɪ* (= M *òɲè-dì*, B *waːɲ-di*, Kadaru *wonɔ-ntu*, etc.). ◊ There are some problems with the reconstruction, but it is possible that all forms go back to PN *\*wiɲ- ~ \*waɲ-*; at the very least, *\*wiɲ-ti* “star” is definitely reconstructible for Proto-Nile-Nubian.
|
||||
* “sun”: N *màšà* (= ON *mašal-*), K *masil*, D *masɪl* (= M *pàssàr*). ◊ The isogloss with M confirms PN status, although some phonetic peculiarities (such as the irregular *-š-* in N) as well as the attestation of the term *maša ~ masa* in Meroitic, where it denotes a supreme deity[^sun] indirectly suggest a possible areal isogloss; if so, an alternate candidate for PN “sun” would be *\*eːs-* → B *iːzi*, Dl *eɟ* “sun,” further related to M *èːsì* “heat; midday,” K *eːs* id., D *ɛːs* “afternoon.” In either case, N still aligns with K/D rather than anything else.
|
||||
* “sun”: N *màšà* (= ON *mašal-*), K *masil*, D *masɪl* (= M *pàssàr*). ◊ The isogloss with M confirms PN status, although some phonetic peculiarities (such as the irregular *-š-* in N) as well as the attestation of the term *maša ~ masa* in Meroitic, where it denotes a supreme deity[^sun] indirectly suggest a possible areal isogloss; if so, an alternate candidate for PN “sun” would be *\*eːs-* > B *iːzi*, Dl *eɟ* “sun,” further related to M *èːsì* “heat; midday,” K *eːs* id., D *ɛːs* “afternoon.” In either case, N still aligns with K/D rather than anything else.
|
||||
* you (sg.): N *ì-r*, K *e-r*, D *ɛ-r* (= M *íː-n*, B *e-di*, Dl *a*, Karko *yā*, etc.). ◊ Although all the forms are related (going back to PN *\*i-*), N is noticeably closer to K/D in terms of morphological structure (with the direct stem marker *\*-r*).
|
||||
* “tongue”: N *nàr*, K *ned*, D *nɛd* (= M *kàda-ŋì*, B *nat-ti*, Dl *ɟale*, Debri *ɲal-do*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ɲal(T)*-.[^tongue] Interestingly, the ON equivalent tame- (no parallels in other languages) is completely different — the only case on the list where ON differs not only from N, but from all other Nubian languages as well.
|
||||
* “tooth”: N *nìːd*, K *nel*, D *nɛl* (= M *kə̀d-dì*, B *ɲil-di*, Dl *ɟili*, etc.). ◊ All forms reflect PN *\*ɲəl-*.
|
||||
* “two”: N *úwwó*, K *owwi*, D *owwɪ* (= M *ə́d-dí*, B *ul-ug*, Dl *ore*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*awri*; the unusual cluster *\*-wr-* is responsible for the unusual development *\*-r- → -w-* already in Proto-Nile-Nubian (rather than just in N), and is actually seen explicitly in the extinct and very poorly attested Haraza Nubian: *auri-yah* “two.”[^15]
|
||||
* “two”: N *úwwó*, K *owwi*, D *owwɪ* (= M *ə́d-dí*, B *ul-ug*, Dl *ore*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*awri*; the unusual cluster *\*-wr-* is responsible for the unusual development *\*-r- > -w-* already in Proto-Nile-Nubian (rather than just in N), and is actually seen explicitly in the extinct and very poorly attested Haraza Nubian: *auri-yah* “two.”[^15]
|
||||
* “walk (go)”: N *ɟúù-*, K/D *ɟuː* (= M *sə́-r-*, Dl *šu*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*cuː-*.
|
||||
* “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)*.
|
||||
|
|
@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
|
|||
* “that”: N *mán*, K/D *man*.
|
||||
* “this”: N *in*, K *in*, D *ɪn*. ◊ The subsystems of deictic pronouns in M, B, and Hill Nubian are much less cohesive than in Nile-Nubian and do not allow for reliable reconstructions of any PN items that would be different from Nile-Nubian.
|
||||
* “what”: N *mìn*, K *min*, D *mɪn*. ◊ It is quite possible that the Nile-Nubian situation here is innovative, since all other branches agree on *\*na(i)-* as a better equivalent for PN “what?”: M *nèː-n*, B *na-ta*, Dl *na*, Karko *nái*, etc.[^16]
|
||||
* “woman”: N *ìd-éːn*, K *eːn*, D *ɛːn*. ◊ Technically, this is not a fully exclusive Nile-Nubian isogloss — cf. B *eːn* “woman.” However, the main root for “woman” in Nubian is *\*il-* (ON *il-*, M *ìd-dì ← il-ti*, Dl *eli*, Karko *îl*, etc.); *\*eːn* is the common Nubian word for “mother,” which has, most likely, independently shifted to “woman” in general in modern Nile-Nubian languages and in B. N is particularly innovative in that respect, since it uses a compound formation: *ìd* “person” + *éːn* “mother.”
|
||||
* “woman”: N *ìd-éːn*, K *eːn*, D *ɛːn*. ◊ Technically, this is not a fully exclusive Nile-Nubian isogloss — cf. B *eːn* “woman.” However, the main root for “woman” in Nubian is *\*il-* (ON *il-*, M *ìd-dì < il-ti*, Dl *eli*, Karko *îl*, etc.); *\*eːn* is the common Nubian word for “mother,” which has, most likely, independently shifted to “woman” in general in modern Nile-Nubian languages and in B. N is particularly innovative in that respect, since it uses a compound formation: *ìd* “person” + *éːn* “mother.”
|
||||
|
||||
[^feather]: Khalil, *Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache,* p. 124.
|
||||
[^16]: In Starostin, *Языки Африки,* p. 92 I suggest that, since the regular reflex of PN *\*n-* in Hill Nubian is *d-*, both Nile-Nubian *\*min* and all the *na(i)*-like forms may go back to a unique PN stem *\*nwV-*; if so, the word should be moved to [I.1](#i1), but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss.
|
||||
|
|
@ -187,11 +187,11 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
|
|||
|
||||
### 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).
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* “skin”: N *náwá* (← *\*nawar*, cf. pl. *nàwàr-íː*; = B *noːr*, Dl *dor*, etc.). ◊ Opposed to K *aɟin*, D *aɟɪn* “skin, leather.”
|
||||
* (?) “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.”
|
||||
|
||||
### II.2. Potential Synonymy in the Protolanguage
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -202,13 +202,13 @@ 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}
|
||||
|
||||
* “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.).
|
||||
* (?) “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.
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* (?) “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.
|
||||
* “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.).
|
||||
* “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).
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
|
||||
[^earth]: Werner. *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 357.
|
||||
|
|
@ -219,20 +219,20 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
|
|||
|
||||
* “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.).
|
||||
* (?) “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 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.
|
||||
* “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).
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* (?) “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.
|
||||
* “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).
|
||||
* “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*.
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* “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*.
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
* “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*).
|
||||
* “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.
|
||||
|
|
@ -244,8 +244,8 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
|
|||
|
||||
### III.3. Nobiin-exclusive Recent Borrowings {#iii3}
|
||||
|
||||
* “cloud”: N *géːm* ← Arabic *ʁayma-*. Replaces ON *niɟɟ-*, a common Nubian root (= D *niccɪ*, M *tèccì-dì*, B *naːsi-di*, etc.).
|
||||
* “yellow”: N *asfar* ← Arabic *ʼaṣfar*. The word in general is highly unstable in Nubian and not reconstructible for PN.
|
||||
* “cloud”: N *géːm* < Arabic *ʁayma-*. Replaces ON *niɟɟ-*, a common Nubian root (= D *niccɪ*, M *tèccì-dì*, B *naːsi-di*, etc.).
|
||||
* “yellow”: N *asfar* < Arabic *ʼaṣfar*. The word in general is highly unstable in Nubian and not reconstructible for PN.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis of the Data
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ In *Языки Африки,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding
|
|||
* *kìd* “stone” — cf. Luo *kidi*, Shilluk *kit*, etc. “stone";
|
||||
* *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.
|
||||
[^27]: Vossem, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354.
|
||||
|
|
@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ Starostin, George.  In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigall 1874–1974,* edited by Herbert Ganslmayr and Hermann Jungraithmayr. Bremen: Übersee-Museum, 1977: pp. 197–210.
|
||||
|
||||
Thelwall, Robin.  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.  In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286.
|
||||
|
||||
Vasilyev, Mikhail & George Starostin.  ["Lexicostatistical Classification of the Nubian languages and the Issue of the Nile-Nubian Genetic Unity"]. *Journal of Language Relationship* 12 (2014): 51–72.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ title: Claude Rilly
|
|||
|
||||
# Biography
|
||||
|
||||
Something about the author.
|
||||
Claude Rilly is a senior researcher in CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique) in Paris. Since 2019, he also hold the professorship in “Meroitic Language and Civilisation” at the École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, (Paris – Sorbonne). From 2009 to 2014, he was director of the French Archaeological Unit in Khartoum (SFDAS). Since 2008, he leads the French Archaeological Mission of Sedeinga, in Sudanese Nubia. He has written three monographs on Meroitic language: *La langue du Royaume de Meroé* (2007), *Le méroïtique et sa famille lingustique* (2010), and *The Meroitic Language and Writing System* (with A. de Voogt, 2012), as well as a comprehensive “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung” (2017).
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. "‘Nile-Nubianʼ Reconsidered." In *Topics in Nilo-
|
|||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. *The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.* 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." 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue