diff --git a/content/article/blench.md b/content/article/blench.md index e6c4607..7cb688a 100644 --- a/content/article/blench.md +++ b/content/article/blench.md @@ -838,4 +838,4 @@ Werner, Roland. *Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).* Berlin: Dietrich Yigezu, Moges, and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal “Notes on Baale.” In *Surmic Languages and Cultures,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273-317. -Zwarts, Joost “Number in Endo-Marakwet.” In *Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22-25, 2001,* edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2007: pp. 281-294. +Zwarts, Joost “Number in Endo-Marakwet.” 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. diff --git a/content/article/norton.md b/content/article/norton.md index 1984e83..6623321 100644 --- a/content/article/norton.md +++ b/content/article/norton.md @@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified | | | | | | | |-----|------------------|----|-----------------------------------|-----|------------------| -| kɛ́r | woman | nɪ́ | kill (factative) | ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | do (transitive) | -| kɛ̄r | crane (bird sp.) | nɪ̄ | kill (progressive 3rd person) | ɕɪ̄ɛ̄ | say | -| kɛ̀r | around | nɪ̀ | kill (progressive 1st/2nd person) | ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | do (intransitive)| +| kɛ́r | "woman" | nɪ́ | "kill" [fact]({sc}) | ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "do" [tr]({sc}) | +| kɛ̄r | "crane" (bird sp.) | nɪ̄ | "kill" [prog 3]({sc}) | ɕɪ̄ɛ̄ | "say" | +| kɛ̀r | "around" | nɪ̀ | "kill" [prog 1/2]({sc}) | ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "do" [itr]({sc})| **Table 1: Level tone contrasts in Ama** @@ -50,44 +50,70 @@ Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan langua | Intransitive coverbs | | Transitive coverbs | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | -| nʊ̄nʊ̄ɲ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | hop | díɟí ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | work | -| ɟɪ̀ɟɪ̀ɡ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | speak angrily | ɟɛ̀rɟɛ̀r ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | scatter | -| àɽɪ̀mɛ̀ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | be angry | t̪úūl ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | destroy | -| ōlɡ-ēn ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | cry | dɪ́ɡl-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | gather (Kordofan Nubian *ɖigil)[^11] | -| tɔ̄ɡl-ɛ̄n ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | tie oneself | fɔ̄ɟ-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | make suffer | -| sɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄n ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | complain | tɪ̄m-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | finish | -| | | kɔ̄w-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | iron (Sudanese Arabic *kowa*) | -| | | rɛ̄kb-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | ride (Sudanese Arabic *rikib*) | -| | | mɪ̄skɪ̄l-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | give someone a missed call (S. Arabic *miskil*) | +| nʊ̄nʊ̄ɲ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "hop" | díɟí ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "work" | +| ɟɪ̀ɟɪ̀ɡ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "speak angrily" | ɟɛ̀rɟɛ̀r ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "scatter" | +| àɽɪ̀mɛ̀ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "be angry" | t̪úūl ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "destroy" | +| ōlɡ-ēn ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "cry" | dɪ́ɡl-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "gather" (KN *ɖigil)[^11] | +| tɔ̄ɡl-ɛ̄n ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "tie oneself" | fɔ̄ɟ-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "make suffer" | +| sɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄n ɕɪ̀ɛ̄ | "complain" | tɪ̄m-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "finish" | +| | | kɔ̄w-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "iron" (SA *kowa*) | +| | | rɛ̄kb-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "ride" (SA *rikib*) | +| | | mɪ̄skɪ̄l-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄ | "give someone a missed call" (SA *miskil*) | **Table 3. Ama coverbs** [^11]: Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 159. Her data from Kordofan Nubian varieties shows high tone. -While Ama’s verb-final word order and use of coverbs are reminiscent of other Nilo-Saharan languages, relative clauses in Ama are of a globally rare type. Ama uses adjoined relative clauses at the end of the main clause, and these modify the last noun of the main clause.[^12][^13] +While Ama’s verb-final word order and use of coverbs are reminiscent of other Nilo-Saharan languages, relative clauses in Ama are of a globally rare type. Ama uses adjoined relative clauses at the end of the main clause, and these modify the last noun of the main clause.[^12] [^12]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 178, shows cleft constructions with a similar core+adjoined structure, *wadang nɔ a nɛ [a meo tolun]* "This is the man [I saw yesterday].” -[^13]: Glossing abbreviations: 1, 2, 3 – 1st, 2nd, 3rd person; acc – accusative; decl – declarative; dir – directional; distr – distributive; du – dual; ev – event; fact – factative; gen – genitive; imp – imperative; loc – locative; med – mediopassive; medcaus – mediocausative; pass – passive; pct – punctual; pl – plural; prog – progressive; pst – past; ptcp – participle; sg – singular; th – theme; top – topic; tr. – transitive; ven – ventive; ver – veridical. -(1) +{{< gloss "(1)" >}} +{r} **Ama** +{g} *àɪ̀*,[1sg]({sc})|*bā*,[decl.ver]({sc})| *ìr-ò*,elephant-[acc]({sc})| *tɛ̀lɛ̄*,see|,[|*(ɪ̀n)*,[3sg]({sc})|*kwārāŋ-àʊ̀*,field-[loc]({sc})|*túŋ*,sleep:[prog]({sc}) ]| +{r} “I definitely saw the elephant who was sleeping in a field.” +{{< /gloss >}} -(2) +{{< gloss "(2)" >}} +{g} ābɪ̄dɪ̄-ʊ̄ŋ,God-[gen]({sc})|*kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*d̪ɛ̄*,[ev]({sc})|*ɪ̄rɪ̄d̪ā*,message|*wʊ̄ɔ̄*,keep:[prog]({sc})|*kɛ̄r-àʊ̀*,girl (*kɛ̄rà*)-[loc]({sc})|,[|*yʊ̄sʊ̄f-ɪ̄l*,Joseph-[loc]({sc})|*tɪ̄ŋ-ɛ́ɪ́*,choose-[med]({sc}) ]| +{r} “An angel from God had a message for a girl who was engaged to Joseph.” +{{< /gloss >}} The adjoined relative clause strategy means that verbs tend not to occur in noun phrases in Ama, although for completeness we should observe that they are not entirely excluded. Since it is impossible to modify the subject of a transitive clause by an adjoined relative clause, as it is separated by another object or oblique noun, speakers consulted confirmed that it is grammatically acceptable to modify a subject noun by a progressive verb within the noun phrase as in (3), although they felt this is not used much, and I have not found examples in texts. However, verb participles marked by the suffix *-ɔ̀* (or *-ò* by vowel harmony) also occur in noun phrases, including in texts as in (4) and (5). -(3) +{{< gloss "(3)" >}} +{r} Unmarked relative clause in subject noun phrase (elicited) +{g} *ìr*,elephant|*nɔ̄*,this|,[|*mūɕ-èɡ*,run-[dir:prog]({sc}) ]|*bā*,[decl.ver]({sc})|*āŋ*,[1sg.acc]({sc})|*t̪ɛ̀lɛ̄*,see:[fact]({sc})| +{r} “This running elephant definitely saw me.” +{{< /gloss >}} -(4) +{{< gloss "(4)" >}} +{r} Participial subject relative clause +{g} *ə́níŋè*,when|,[|*wád̪à*,word|*kìr-d̪-ò*,cut-[pct-ptcp]({sc}) ]|*wàá*,people|*ɕɪ̀ɽāɡɪ́d̪ɪ́*,rule|*wāɡ-áʊ́*,keep-[pst.prog]({sc})| +{r} “When the judges (lit. ‘cut-word people’) were ruling,” +{{< /gloss >}} -(5) +{{< gloss "(5)" >}} +{r} Participial object relative clause +{g} *mʊ̄rd̪à*,horse|,[|*kʊ̄ɟɔ̄-ɔ̀*,saddle-[ptcp]({sc}) ]|*d̪ɛ̄*,[ev]({sc})|*ŋáŋà*,attention|*túɽāk*,warn:[prog]({sc})| +{r} “The saddled horse is warning, look out.” +{{< /gloss >}} Nevertheless, the adjoined relative clause strategy is an innovative feature of Ama that tends to place information about participants outside the noun phrase where they are mentioned. A similar distribution applies to the expression of number. Within the noun phrase, there are no number affixes, although there is a plural specifier *ŋɪ̄* or *ɡɪ̄* that can be used with rational nouns as seen in (6). Speakers consulted assess this specifier the same way as unmarked relative clauses within the noun phrase: acceptable, but not used much. However, Ama also has a post-verbal quantifier *ɡàɪ̀* that can be used when there is a plural participant in the clause, as shown in (7).[^14] [^14]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 176, claims that “GAI gives the idea of completion, going on till an act is finished,” although all his examples involve a plural subject "they” His claim suggests that this quantifier may have a collective function, over all participants and/or over all the stages in the completion of the event. It can nevertheless appear in the same clause as distributive marking *-ɪ́d̪,* as in an example shown in Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” p. 83, *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄ ɡàɪ̀* "the child saw each of the children [until she had seen them all].” -(6) +{{< gloss "(6)" >}} +{r} Plural noun phrase specifier (elicited) +{g} *ābā*,father|*dɪ̀à*,big|*ŋɪ̄*,[pl]({sc})| +{r} “grandfathers” +{{< /gloss >}} -(7) +{{< gloss "(7)" >}} +{r} Post-verbal plural quantifier +{g} *wàá*,people|*dū*,[top]({sc})|*fāɽāŋ*,drum|*fɪ̄l*,dance:[prog]({sc})|*ɡàɪ̀*,[pl]({sc})| +{r} “The people were all dancing to a drum.” +{{< /gloss >}} We will return to this tendency to express relative clauses and number late in the clause after considering other evidence from verb stems. @@ -106,8 +132,8 @@ The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite | | active verb | stative verb | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative aspect** | t̪àl “ate” (past perfective) | t̪ʊ̄-máɪ́ “know” (present continuous) | -| **progressive aspect** | tām “is eating” | ?máɪ́ “is knowing” | +| [fact]({sc}) | t̪àl “ate” (past perf.) | t̪ʊ̄-máɪ́ “know” (pres. cont.) | +| [prog]({sc}) | tām “is eating” | ?máɪ́ “is knowing” | **Table 4. Verb stems of active and stative verbs** @@ -115,7 +141,7 @@ The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite Although factative aspect is broader in meaning and more heavily used in text, the progressive stem is generally more basic in form, often consisting only of the bare root. However, neither the factative stem nor the progressive stem is predictable from the other in general because: (i) factative stems belong to various theme vowel classes, and some belong to a class taking a formative prefix *t̪V-*; (ii) in some verbs the two stems have two different suppletive roots; and (iii) the progressive stems of some verbs require certain obligatory incorporated affixes. When the root is extracted from any additional formatives, CVC is the most frequent verb root shape. -| factative | progressive | gloss | morphology other than factative theme vowel | +| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | morphology other than [fact]({sc}) theme vowel | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ | search | | | kɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | kɪ̄r | cut | | @@ -160,7 +186,7 @@ The CVC shape of verb roots is characteristic across Eastern Sudanic languages. An alternation between *t̪-* and *k-* cuts into the characteristic CVC shape in one class of Ama verbs as a marker of aspect along with the theme vowel. -| factative stem | progressive stem | gloss | +| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | | --- | --- | --- | | t̪-ùɡ-è | k-ūɡ | build | | t̪-īw-ò | k-íw | dig | @@ -172,7 +198,7 @@ A longer list of examples of this alternation shown in table 8 was documented by [^20]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 16. By convention, *t* is dental and mid tone is left unmarked in their data. Pertinent to the present alternation, I question the phonemic status of the *w* in *t/kw* alternations before rounded vowels. -| factative stem | progressive stem | gloss | +| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | | --- | --- | --- | | tuɡɛ̀ | kwò | build | | tàiɔ̀ | kaì | chop | @@ -218,7 +244,7 @@ Seen in this light, the significance of moving T/K morphology onto verbs in the ## Concretization of Core Clause Constituents -We can also now tie together this finding with the findings on verb syntax in [§2](#syntax). Both T/K number marking and relative clause modification have moved out of the noun phrase, and in these comparable changes we can observe a trend towards concretization of noun phrases, with number and clausal information about the participant being expressed later in the clause. +We can also now tie together this finding with the findings on verb syntax in [2](#syntax). Both T/K number marking and relative clause modification have moved out of the noun phrase, and in these comparable changes we can observe a trend towards concretization of noun phrases, with number and clausal information about the participant being expressed later in the clause. The trend towards concretization also affects the verb itself. T/K and other irregular stem alternations did not maintain their pluractional meaning, as this evolved into a more concrete construal of the predicate over an interval of time as progressive aspect. Since concretization affected the verb as well as noun phrases, it affected the entire core SOV clause, with plurality as well as relative clauses largely deferred to after the verb. @@ -227,13 +253,45 @@ A role for concreteness in grammar was previously proposed in the Pirahã langu [^30]: Everett, “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã.” [^31]: Nevins, Pesetsky & Rodrigues, “Pirahã Exceptionality"; Everett, “Pirahã Culture and Grammar.” -(8) +{{< gloss "(8a)" >}} +{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*tòɽū*,tall| +{r} “tall man” +{{< /gloss >}} -(9) +{{< gloss "(8b)" >}} +{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*tòɽū*,tall|*nɛ̄*,be| +{r} “The man is tall.” +{{< /gloss >}} -(10) +{{< gloss "(9a)" >}} +{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*ɡɔ̀ɽɛ̀*,old| +{r} “old man” +{{< /gloss >}} -(11) +{{< gloss "(9b)" >}} +{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*ɡɔ̀ɽɛ̀*,tall|*nɛ̄*,be| +{r} “The man is old.” +{{< /gloss >}} + +{{< gloss "(10a)" >}} +{g} *ŋɔ̄ɽɪ̄*,day|*mūl*,five| +{r} "five days" +{{< /gloss >}} + +{{< gloss "(10a)" >}} +{g} *ŋɔ̄ɽɪ̄*,day|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*mūl*,five|*nɛ̄-ɛ́d̪-ɪ̄*,be-[distr-th]({sc})| +{r} “The days are five.” (“There are five days.”) +{{< /gloss >}} + +{{< gloss "(11a)" >}} +{g} *wàá*,people|*kàdúùŋ*,many| +{r} "many people" +{{< /gloss >}} + +{{< gloss "(11b)" >}} +{g} *wàá*,people|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*kàdúùŋ*,many|*nɛ̄-ɛ́d̪-ɪ̄*,be-[distr-th]({sc})| +{r} “The people are many.” (“There are many people.”) +{{< /gloss >}} # Ama Verbal affixes @@ -245,49 +303,49 @@ Research over the past century has also been gradually clarifying the complex mo Some verbal affixes are selected depending on factative or progressive aspect in Ama, just as verb stems are. For example, different suffixes for past tense or for directional movement are selected in the different aspects: -| | stem | past | +| | stem | [pst]({sc}) | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative** | t̪àl | t̪àl-ʊ̀n | -| **progressive** | tām | tām-áʊ́ | +| **[fact]({sc})** | t̪àl | t̪àl-ʊ̀n | +| **[prog]({sc})** | tām | tām-áʊ́ | **Table 9a. Affix selection according to aspect: "eat"** -| | stem | direction | +| | stem | [dir]({sc}) | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | -| **progressive** | dɪ̄ɟ-ɪ̄ | dīɟ-ír | +| **[fact]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | +| **[prog]({sc})** | dɪ̄ɟ-ɪ̄ | dīɟ-ír | **Table 9b. Affix selection according to aspect: "throw"** The same is true of passive and ventive suffixes, but in factative aspect the suffixes replace the theme vowel, so that the affixes are the sole exponent of aspect in many verbs: -| | stem | passive | +| | stem | [pass]({sc}) | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áɪ́ | -| **progressive** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-àɡ | +| **[fact]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áɪ́ | +| **[prog]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-àɡ | **Table 10a. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: "paint"** -| | stem | ventive | +| | stem | [ven]({sc}) | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative** | ɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | ɪ̄r-ɪ́ɪ̄ɡ | -| **progressive** | ɪ̄r | ɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪ɛ̄ɛ̀ɡ | +| **[fact]({sc})** | ɪ̄r-ɛ̄ | ɪ̄r-ɪ́ɪ̄ɡ | +| **[prog]({sc})** | ɪ̄r | ɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪ɛ̄ɛ̀ɡ | **Table 10b. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: "send"** In passive and in past, affix order also varies according to aspect with respect to the dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*: -| | stem | dual passive | +| | stem | [du pass]({sc}) | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áy-ɛ̄n | -| **progressive** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄n-àɡ | +| **[fact]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-áy-ɛ̄n | +| **[prog]({sc})** | ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄ | ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄n-àɡ | **Table 11a. Affix order variation according to aspect: "paint"** -| | stem | dual past | +| | stem | [du pst]({sc}) | | --- | --- | --- | -| **factative** | sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | -| **progressive** | sāŋ | sāŋ-áw-ɛ̄n | +| **[fact]({sc})** | sāŋ-ɔ̄ | sāŋ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | +| **[prog]({sc})** | sāŋ | sāŋ-áw-ɛ̄n | **Table 11b. Affix order variation according to aspect: "search"** @@ -295,19 +353,19 @@ The origin of this affix order variation is revealed by further evidence. Passiv | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | -| **gloss** | throw | throw to (du.) | elicit (du.) | -| **factative** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ | kɪ́l-ɛ̄n-ɔ̀ | +| **gloss** | throw | throw to [du]({sc}) | elicit [du]({sc}) | +| **[fact]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ | kɪ́l-ɛ̄n-ɔ̀ | | | throw-th-dir | throw-ven-du-dir | hear-du-medcaus | -| **factative imperative** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄-ɪ̀ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | +| **[fact imp]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄-ɪ̀ | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀ | | | throw-dir-th-imp | throw-ven-dir-du-imp | hear-medcaus-du-imp | -| **factative past** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɔ̄-ɔ̀n | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | +| **[fact pst]({sc})** | dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɔ̄-ɔ̀n | dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n | | | throw-dir-th-pst | throw-ven-dir-du-pst | hear-medcaus-du-pst | **Table 12. Inward displacement of suffixes by an imperative or past suffix** Both types of affix alternation in tables 11 and 12 involve low-tone suffixes in the final slot. Therefore, the development of all affix order alternations can be attributed to a single historical shift of all low-tone suffixes to the final slot. However, this shift is not realized in verbs containing two low-tone suffixes, because only one of them can go in the final slot. The only final-slot suffix that does not alternate is the imperative *-ɪ̀,* which leaves imperative as original to the final slot. Other suffixes originate from more internal slots to the left of the dual. -As for the origin of affix selection according to aspect, this presumably arose as an extension of the systematic stem selection that occurs for every verb in Nyima languages. This question remains complex, however, because each of the categories affected (past, passive, directional, ventive) will have its own history as to how alternating affixes were acquired in these conditions. One modest proposal is that the NES plural copula *\*aɡ* shown earlier in **table 6** is the likely source of the progressive passive suffix *-àɡ* in Ama,[^33] via the shift from pluractional to progressive \([§3.3](#tk)\), and by a plausible assumption of a transition in passive marking strategy from use of a copula to morphological marking on the verb. This sourcing does not extend to the other passive suffix in factative aspect *-áɪ́,* however, which does not resemble the singular copula *\*an*. Some similar proposals that other progressive suffixes have pluractional origins are made in the course of §4.2 below. +As for the origin of affix selection according to aspect, this presumably arose as an extension of the systematic stem selection that occurs for every verb in Nyima languages. This question remains complex, however, because each of the categories affected (past, passive, directional, ventive) will have its own history as to how alternating affixes were acquired in these conditions. One modest proposal is that the NES plural copula *\*aɡ* shown earlier in **table 6** is the likely source of the progressive passive suffix *-àɡ* in Ama,[^33] via the shift from pluractional to progressive \([3.3](#tk)\), and by a plausible assumption of a transition in passive marking strategy from use of a copula to morphological marking on the verb. This sourcing does not extend to the other passive suffix in factative aspect *-áɪ́,* however, which does not resemble the singular copula *\*an*. Some similar proposals that other progressive suffixes have pluractional origins are made in the course of §4.2 below. [^33]: The Tama plural copula *àɡ* is likewise listed with low tone in Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 451. @@ -319,7 +377,7 @@ Ama has extensions that fall within the family of pluractionals that associate p ### Distributive Pluractional -Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of an event over time or over participants (*àɪ̀ bā fʊ̄rā mʊ̄l t̪àl-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̀* "I ate until I had eaten five rabbits," *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄* "The child saw each of the children").[^35] Called “plural” in earlier works, it is remarkable that this category was largely unaffected by the shift of pluractional → progressive analyzed in [§3.3](#tk) above,[^36] indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix *-r* used only on verbs with the theme vowel *-a* (*wāɡ-ā* "keep," distributive *wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r*).[^37] Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix *-tər,*[^38] which corresponds to Ama *-ɪ́d̪* and *-r* combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel *-a,* but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix *-ɪ́d̪* also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,[^39] and a “plurality of action” suffix *-íd* in Midob.[^40] The distributive suffix *-ij* in Kunuz Nubian is also similar.[^41] +Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of an event over time or over participants (*àɪ̀ bā fʊ̄rā mʊ̄l t̪àl-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̀* "I ate until I had eaten five rabbits," *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄* "The child saw each of the children").[^35] Called “plural” in earlier works, it is remarkable that this category was largely unaffected by the shift of pluractional → progressive analyzed in [3.3](#tk) above,[^36] indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix *-r* used only on verbs with the theme vowel *-a* (*wāɡ-ā* "keep," distributive *wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r*).[^37] Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix *-tər,*[^38] which corresponds to Ama *-ɪ́d̪* and *-r* combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel *-a,* but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix *-ɪ́d̪* also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,[^39] and a “plurality of action” suffix *-íd* in Midob.[^40] The distributive suffix *-ij* in Kunuz Nubian is also similar.[^41] [^35]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 77, 83. [^36]: I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ* (throw-ven-du-dir) "threw to"/"is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix *-ɪ́*. @@ -338,7 +396,7 @@ Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural partic [^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. -| 1st person | gloss | 2nd person | gloss | 3rd person | gloss | +| 1 | gloss | 2 | gloss | 3 | gloss | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you (sg.) milk | kaɲál | he/she milks | | kó-ɡaɲal | we (du.) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you (du.) milk | ɡaɲál-i | they (du.) milk | @@ -367,7 +425,7 @@ The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks [^54]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 40. -| singular | dual | distributive plural | gloss | +| [sg]({sc}) | [du]({sc}) | [distr pl]({sc}) | gloss | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | fá kɪ̄r-ār | à-fá kɪ̄r-ār-ɛ̄n | à-fá kɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪-ār | don’t be cutting! | | fá sāŋ-ār | à-fá sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n | à-fá sāŋ-ɪ́d̪-ār | don’t be searching! | @@ -378,11 +436,11 @@ The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks Another trilled suffix *-ir* marks motion in progress.[^55] It can be added to a progressive verb (*dɪ̄ɟɪ̄* “is throwing” → *dīɟ-ír* “is throwing (motion in progress)”), but on several motion verbs it is documented as part of the progressive stem, as in the examples in **table 15** below from Stevenson, Rottland, and Jakobi.[^56] The motion meaning of *-ir* simply agrees with the semantics of the roots, all of which define motion along some schematic scale, so that the aspectual meaning of *-ir* assumes greater significance. Hence, *-ir* approximates a progressive stem formative for this class of verbs. The final example in **table 15**, due to Kingston,[^57] shows still another trilled suffix *-or* in the progressive stem of a caused motion verb. -[^55] I defer description of tone on this affix to another time. -[^56] Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” -[^57] This verb appears in unpublished data collected by Abi Kingston. +[^55]: I defer description of tone on this affix to another time. +[^56]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” +[^57]: This verb appears in unpublished data collected by Abi Kingston. -| factative | progressive | gloss | +| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | gloss | | --- | --- | --- | | bwìɡ | buɡìr | overtake | | nɪfɛ̀ɡ | nɪfìr | fall | @@ -424,8 +482,41 @@ Some time after the contact with Heiban, Rottland and Jakobi note the likelihood [^67]: Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains.” -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 *oi* but 1sg 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 *oi,* 2sg *i*)[^69] are similar to Ama (1sg *àɪ̀,* 2sg *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. +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. [^69]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177. [^70]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md) + +# Abbreviations + +* [1, 2, 3]({sc}) – 1st, 2nd, 3rd person; +* [acc]({sc}) – accusative; +* [decl]({sc}) – declarative; +* [dir]({sc}) – directional; +* [distr]({sc}) – distributive; +* [du]({sc}) – dual; +* [ev]({sc}) – event; +* [fact]({sc}) – factative; +* [gen]({sc}) – genitive; +* [imp]({sc}) – imperative; +* [itr]({sc}) – intransitive; +* KN – Kordofan Nubian; +* [loc]({sc}) – locative; +* [med]({sc}) – mediopassive; +* [medcaus]({sc}) – mediocausative; +* [pass]({sc}) – passive; +* [pct]({sc}) – punctual; +* [pl]({sc}) – plural; +* [prog]({sc}) – progressive; +* [pst]({sc}) – past; +* [ptcp]({sc}) – participle; +* SA – Sudanese Arabic; +* [sg]({sc}) – singular; +* [th]({sc}) – theme; +* [top]({sc}) – topic; +* [tr]({sc}) – transitive; +* [ven]({sc}) – ventive; +* [ver]({sc}) – veridical + +# Bibliography diff --git a/content/article/rilly.md b/content/article/rilly.md index 0aafc61..f307baf 100644 --- a/content/article/rilly.md +++ b/content/article/rilly.md @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ In the paradigm of personal pronouns, the 3rd person has a special place. Wherea {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(3)" >}} -{g} ***qo***:,this|*Atqo*,Ataqu|***q(o)***-*o-wi :*,this-[cop-emp]({sc})| +{g} ***qo*** *:*,this|*Atqo*,Ataqu|***q(o)***-*o-wi :*,this-[cop-emp]({sc})| {r} “This (one), this is Ataqu.” (REM 1057, epitaph) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Whereas Hintze regarded *qe/qo* as a demonstrative, Hofmann held it as a persona [^ex9]: In (9), the kinship term *yetmde* is applied to younger members of the same maternal line (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* 526-527). It mostly designates “nephews” and “nieces,” who are referring to a prestigious uncle in the descriptive part of their epitaph, but in rare cases such as this one, it can be applied to a younger brother. {{< gloss "(9)" >}} -{g} *Qoreqore-l-o-wi* [:,Qurqurla-[cop-emp]({sc})|*y*]*etmde*,relative|***qe-se*** *:*,[3sg-gen]({sc})|*Qoretkr*,Qurtakara|*q(o)-o-wi :*,this-[cop-emp]({sc})| +{g} *Qoreqore-l-o-wi* [:,Qurqurla-[cop-emp]({sc})|*y*]*etmde*,relative|***qese*** *:*,[3sg.gen]({sc})|*Qoretkr*,Qurtakara|*q(o)-o-wi :*,this-[cop-emp]({sc})| {r} “(This) is Qurqurla; this is his elder Qurtakara.” (REM 0273/2–4, funerary stela) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ The possessive of the 3rd person singular includes the pronoun *qo/qe,* followed [^20]: The initial *a* in *aqese* and in the variants of the 3rd plural possessive, *aqebese* and *aqobese* are unexplained. It is possible that this *a* is etymological and that, in this case, the forms *qese* and *qebese* result from apheresis (a widespread development in Meroitic, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 290-291). In some instances, however, a non-etymological *a* is added at the beginning of a word for unknown reasons, for example *Ams-i* “oh (sun-god) Masha” in REM 0091C instead of expected *Ms-i.* {{< gloss "(10)" >}} -{g} *perite :*,agent|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*qorene*,royal.scribe|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*yetmde*,nephew|***qe-be-se***-*l-o-wi :*,[3-pl-gen-det-cop-emp]({sc})| +{g} *perite :*,agent|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*qorene*,royal.scribe|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*yetmde*,nephew|***qebese***-*l-o-wi :*,[3pl.gen-det-cop-emp]({sc})| {r} “He was the nephew of agents of Isis and royal scribes (?) of Isis." (GA. 04, epitaph) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -158,7 +158,8 @@ The possessive *qebe-se* includes *qebe-,* a plural form of *qo* that is more co [^x10]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 389. ->Determiner: singular *-l* → plural *-le****b*** / Pronoun: singular *-qo/-qe* → plural *qe****b****e-* +* Determiner: singular *-l* → plural *-le****b*** +* Pronoun: singular *-qo/-qe* → plural *qe****b****e-* *Qebese* has several variants, *aqebese,* *aqobese* (see n. 20 [CHECK]) *eqebese,* and especially *bese,* which is frequent. This last form, in all likelihood, is not an abbreviated variant but is based on a still earlier form of the 3rd person pronoun, *-b,* which will be considered below [ADD REF]. @@ -202,13 +203,13 @@ Meroitic is an agglutinative language, but it has a strong propensity to assimil {{< gloss "(15)" >}} {r} Formula A (archaic) -{g} *ato*,water|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt]({sc})| +{g} *ato*,water|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt.2sg]({sc})| {r} “May you give him/her plentiful water!” (REM 0427) {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(16)" >}} {r} Formula B (archaic) -{g} *at*,bread|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt]({sc})| +{g} *at*,bread|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt.2sg]({sc})| {r} “May you give him/her plentiful bread!” (REM 0427) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -544,7 +545,7 @@ This “objective case” in Nubian and in Tama undergoes some restrictions gove Similarly, the objective case ending may be omitted, as can be seen in the second of two consecutive sentences from King Taneyidamani’s stela. In (43), the expected verbal compound, parallel to the singular form *ekedeto* in (42), should be *ekedbxto.* However, maybe because of the presence of the object pronoun *qoleb,* the objective case ending *-x* is absent. {{< gloss "(42)" >}} -{g} *Nhror*,Nakharura|*wide-l :*,brother-[det]({sc})|*e-ked-e-to :*,[1sg.s]({sc})-kill-[tam]({sc})| +{g} *Nhror*,Nakharura|*wide-l :*,brother-[det]({sc})|*e-kede-to :*,[1sg.s]({sc})-kill-[tam]({sc})| {r} “I killed the brother, Nakharura” (REM 1044/143–144) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -625,11 +626,11 @@ Note that only the passages where at least the verb *ked* is present are taken i | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | REM 1044 | 5 | | e-ked | erk (← e- + er-k) | | | 130–131 | | e-ked-td | er-td (← e- + er-td) | -| | 143 | (42) | e-ked-e-to | | -| | 144 | | e-ked-e-to | | -| | 149–151 | (43) | e-ked-e-b-to | | -| REM 0092 | 6–8 | | ked-e-to | are-de-to | -| | 12–14 | | ked-e-to | are-de-to | +| | 143 | (42) | e-kede-to | | +| | 144 | | e-kede-to | | +| | 149–151 | (43) | e-kede-b-to | | +| REM 0092 | 6–8 | | kede-to | are-de-to | +| | 12–14 | | kede-to | are-de-to | | REM 1003 | 4–5 | (35) | ye-ked-i | tk-k; yerki (← ye- + er-k-i) | | | 9 | | ye-ked-i | erk (← e- + er-k) | | | 11 | (36) | ye-ked | tk-k | @@ -640,13 +641,13 @@ Note that only the passages where at least the verb *ked* is present are taken i | | 16–17 | (20) | ked | arohe-bx; tk-bxe-l-o | | | 18 | | ye-ked | | | | 20 | | ked | | -| | 24 | | ked-e-bx | | -| REM 0094 | 11 | | ked-e-bxe | | -| | 20–21 | | ked-e-bx | kb-b-te | +| | 24 | | kede-bx | | +| REM 0094 | 11 | | kede-bxe | | +| | 20–21 | | kede-bx | kb-b-te | **Table 2. Forms of the verbs "kill" and "seize" (*vel. sim*) in REM 1044, 0092, 1003, 1333, and 0094.** -The verbal forms listed above show a great diversity of suffixes. The plural verbal marker *-bx(e)* in REM 1333, variant *-b* in REM 1044/149-150 and 0094, and the pluractional suffix *-k* in REM 1044/5 and 1003, which were studied both in [3.3.6](#ii36), are irrelevant in the quest for personal markers. The suffixes *-td* (only in REM 1044), *-to* in REM 1044 and 0092, *-te* in REM 0094 are probably tense or aspect markers, which are in final position in all the other NES languages.[^61] The morpheme *-i* in REM 1003 is obviously optional, as it can be present or absent in identical sequences such as *abr-se-l: ye-ked-i* “I killed each man” in l. 4 vs. *abr-se-l ye-ked* in l. 11.[^62] The vocalic sign *-e* appended to the stem in *(e)-ked-e-to* (REM 1044 and 0092) is probably an epenthetic vowel inserted before the suffix *-to.* In the other verbal forms ending with this suffix that occur in the same texts, the vowel *-e* is generally absent, but no obvious rule, as for now, can predict its appearance. Finally, the forms ending with *-l-o* in REM 1333 are very probably periphrastic, as they include participles followed by the article *-l* and the copula *-o.* The multiplicity of tense or aspect markers that occur in these narrative texts is by no means unexpected or dubious, but is a further aspect of the *varietas* that is so peculiar to the Meroitic texts, when compared with their formulaic Egyptian counterparts.[^63] A similar variety in narrative tenses can be found in many languages. In French, for example, historical records can of course use simple past and imperfect, but present is possible (*présent de narration*) and even future, in this case referring to past events (*futur historique*). +The verbal forms listed above show a great diversity of suffixes. The plural verbal marker *-bx(e)* in REM 1333, variant *-b* in REM 1044/149-150 and 0094, and the pluractional suffix *-k* in REM 1044/5 and 1003, which were studied both in [3.3.6](#ii36), are irrelevant in the quest for personal markers. The suffixes *-td* (only in REM 1044), *-to* in REM 1044 and 0092, *-te* in REM 0094 are probably tense or aspect markers, which are in final position in all the other NES languages.[^61] The morpheme *-i* in REM 1003 is obviously optional, as it can be present or absent in identical sequences such as *abr-se-l: ye-ked-i* “I killed each man” in l. 4 vs. *abr-se-l ye-ked* in l. 11.[^62] The vocalic sign *-e* appended to the stem in *(e)-kede-to* (REM 1044 and 0092) is probably an epenthetic vowel inserted before the suffix *-to.* In the other verbal forms ending with this suffix that occur in the same texts, the vowel *-e* is generally absent, but no obvious rule, as for now, can predict its appearance. Finally, the forms ending with *-l-o* in REM 1333 are very probably periphrastic, as they include participles followed by the article *-l* and the copula *-o.* The multiplicity of tense or aspect markers that occur in these narrative texts is by no means unexpected or dubious, but is a further aspect of the *varietas* that is so peculiar to the Meroitic texts, when compared with their formulaic Egyptian counterparts.[^63] A similar variety in narrative tenses can be found in many languages. In French, for example, historical records can of course use simple past and imperfect, but present is possible (*présent de narration*) and even future, in this case referring to past events (*futur historique*). [^61]: Wolfgang Schenkel, in his analysis of the verbal affixes in the Meroitic royal text ("Meroitisches und Barya-Verb"), assumes that *-td* is a durative suffix, which he compares with the durative ending *-ter/-der* in Nara. Note that this suffix is attested only in Reinisch’s description of the language, which used second-hand material and is not entirely reliable (Reinisch, *Die Barea-Sprache,* 57). Schenkel suggests that the suffix *-to* includes an aorist marker *-t* followed by a 1st person singular *-o,* with similar comparisons with Nara. For a critical review of his hypotheses, see Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* 214-216. Note that the suffix *-te* in REM 0094 (also frequent with other verbs in REM 1003) is not identical with the 2nd person plural suffix of the optative, which is also written *-te* (see [5.2](#iv2) below). [^62]: This morpheme may be the same as the particle *-wi* that is added *ad libitum* to the singular copula *-o* (cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 186). The consonant *w-* could be either an epenthetic glide inserted between *o* (pronounced /u/) and *i,* or a dummy sign used to write the hiatus /u/ + /i/ according to the rules of the alphasyllabic Meroitic writing system (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 294-295). @@ -765,9 +766,9 @@ Instead of *(y)e-,* an alternative prefix *w-* appears before the verbal forms o There is no doubt that the prefixed element *w-,* which is paradigmatically parallel to the morpheme *(y)e-,* is also a person subject marker. We should expect it to mark a different person, which can only be the 1st plural or the 3rd singular or plural, since there is no interlocutor in these sections of the royal inscriptions. Unfortunately, the context of these passages with *w-* does not provide much information, chiefly because of our scanty knowledge of Meroitic, but also because of the poor preservation of some parts of the stelae REM 1044 and 1003. However, it seems that these passages are the continuity of the sentences where the subject is in the first person, either explicitly or implicitly. The passage below precedes (51) in Taneyidamani’s stela (REM 1044/141-155). The lines that follow are unfortunately badly eroded. {{< gloss "(55)" >}} -{r} *Ahotone qorte : drteyose-l :* ***e***-*ked-e-to :* +{r} *Ahotone qorte : drteyose-l :* ***e***-*kede-to :* {r} “I killed Akhutone, the ??? of the palace(?). -{r} *Nhror wide-l :* ***e***-*ked-e-to :* +{r} *Nhror wide-l :* ***e***-*kede-to :* {r} I killed (his) brother Nakharura. {r} *kdi : ste-bese : dnetro :* {r} I ??? their mother [lit. 'woman-tutor']. @@ -779,7 +780,7 @@ There is no doubt that the prefixed element *w-,* which is paradigmatically para {r} ? captured the children of the palace(?) (and) their brother Aroqitama ???.” (= ex. 51) {{< /gloss >}} -Three of these sentences include the subject pronoun marker *e-* “I” in the verbal compounds *e-ked-e-to* (twice) and *e-ked-b-to.* In two other sentences, the prefixed pronoun is absent, but implicit, in *dnetro*(?) and *tk-to.* It is difficult to account for the subject shift in the last sentence (51), where the prefixed pronoun *w-* replaces *e-*. No solution is fully satisfactory, but the most acceptable is to assume that the antecedent of the prefixed pronoun is one of the nouns of the same sentence that would be placed as its topic. These topicalized constructions are well documented in Meroitic.[^x34] They can also be found, under Meroitic influence, in the Egyptian texts of the late Napatan royal inscriptions, as in this example from king Nastasen’s stela (ll. 12–13, after *FHN* II: 478): +Three of these sentences include the subject pronoun marker *e-* “I” in the verbal compounds *e-kede-to* (twice) and *e-ked-b-to.* In two other sentences, the prefixed pronoun is absent, but implicit, in *dnetro*(?) and *tk-to.* It is difficult to account for the subject shift in the last sentence (51), where the prefixed pronoun *w-* replaces *e-*. No solution is fully satisfactory, but the most acceptable is to assume that the antecedent of the prefixed pronoun is one of the nouns of the same sentence that would be placed as its topic. These topicalized constructions are well documented in Meroitic.[^x34] They can also be found, under Meroitic influence, in the Egyptian texts of the late Napatan royal inscriptions, as in this example from king Nastasen’s stela (ll. 12–13, after *FHN* II: 478): [^x34]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 547-548. @@ -799,14 +800,14 @@ Many Meroitic texts include prayers to the gods. They are chiefly present, of co In all these inscriptions, the requests to the gods use verbal moods that fit with wishes, namely imperative or optative. The forms are in the singular in the temples because there is a specific prayer for each deity. They are in the plural in funerary inscriptions because they are addressed to Isis and Osiris together. Unlike in Egyptian and Napatan texts, the gods are never answering. Such sentences as “I gave you all life and all power,” which are so common in Napatan texts and could give us details about the first and second person pronouns, are unfortunately missing from the Meroitic religious texts. However, a small stela found in 1999 has miraculously provided the genitive of the 2nd person pronouns singular and plural. Finally, recent researches on the Meroitic names of person have shown that they sometimes comprised short sentences, which in two cases include a second person singular pronoun. -## Second Person Verbal Suffixes in Optatives and Imperatives +## Second Person Verbal Suffixes in Optatives and Imperatives {#iv1} The final prayers of the funerary texts, which Griffith termed “benedictions,” amount to thirteen different types, classified with uppercase letters from A to L, plus a formula “X” added by Hofmann.[^82] The general scheme for benedictions A to D, by far the most frequent, is presented in **Table 3**.[^83] [^82]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* pp. 42-53; Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 198-200; synthesis in Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 163-183 and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 68-74. A further type of benediction was used in a stela recently found in Sedeinga, Exc. No II S 055, cf. Rilly \& Francigny, “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011,” pp. 70–71. It remains unattested elsewhere. [^83]: For benedictions A and B, see also (11)–(14) above. -| | N | ADJ | D | CAUS | verbal stem | VNM | PL | OPT.2 | Gloss | +| | [n]({sc}) | [adj]({sc}) | [det]({sc}) | [caus]({sc}) | stem | [vnm]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) | [opt.2]({sc}) | gloss | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | A | ato | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | he | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) make her/him/them drink plentiful water | | B | at | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | xr | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) make her/him/them eat plentiful bread | @@ -1058,7 +1059,7 @@ In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show t {r} **Meroitic** {r} **Prefix** ***y(i)-*** (REM 0345, 1096, 1152(?), 1317/1168 (?), 1319, 1321, 1325, 1326) {r} *Formula A* -{g} name*-i*,[pn-voc]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*y-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})| +{g} name-*i*,[pn-voc]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*y-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})| {r} *Formula B* {r} God names and epithets {r} *Formula C* @@ -1068,7 +1069,7 @@ In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show t {{< gloss "(68)" >}} {r} **Prefix** ***d-*** (REM 0361, 1174(?), 1236, 1322, 1323, 1324) {r} *Formula A* -{g} noun*-l*,[n-det]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})| +{g} noun-*l*,[n-det]({sc})|*wte-li*,life-[det]({sc})|*pke-li*,[n-det]({sc})|*d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*,[pm-vc-det-cop-emp]({sc})| {r} *Formula B* {r} God names and epithets {r} *Formula C* diff --git a/content/article/starostin.md b/content/article/starostin.md index 551c04c..2b8683b 100644 --- a/content/article/starostin.md +++ b/content/article/starostin.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ ---- +[--- title: "Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages" author: "George Starostin" abstract: " " @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ The tricky part in investigating this situation is determining the status of tho **Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst** -Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [section III](#iii) of the list below), but how can we distinguish retentions from innovations? If the word in question has no etymological cognates in any other Nubian language, then in most cases such a distinction is impossible.[^10] However, if the retention or innovation in question was not accompanied by the total elimination of the root morpheme, but rather involved a semantic shift, then investigating the situation from an etymo­logical point of view may shed some significant light on the matter. In general, the more lexico­statistical discrepancies we find between Nobiin and the rest of Nubian where the Nobiin item has a Common Nubian etymology, the better the case for the "early separation of Nobiin" hypothesis; the more "strange" words we find in Nobiin whose etymological parallels in the other Nubian languages are highly questionable or non-existent, the stronger the case for the "pre-Nobiin substrate" hypothesis. +Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [III](#iii) of the list below), but how can we distinguish retentions from innovations? If the word in question has no etymological cognates in any other Nubian language, then in most cases such a distinction is impossible.[^10] However, if the retention or innovation in question was not accompanied by the total elimination of the root morpheme, but rather involved a semantic shift, then investigating the situation from an etymo­logical point of view may shed some significant light on the matter. In general, the more lexico­statistical discrepancies we find between Nobiin and the rest of Nubian where the Nobiin item has a Common Nubian etymology, the better the case for the "early separation of Nobiin" hypothesis; the more "strange" words we find in Nobiin whose etymological parallels in the other Nubian languages are highly questionable or non-existent, the stronger the case for the "pre-Nobiin substrate" hypothesis. [^10]: One possible argument in this case would be to rely on data from external comparison. Thus, if we agree that Nubian belongs to the Northern branch of the Eastern Sudanic family, with the Nara language and the Taman group as its closest relatives (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Starostin, *Jazyki Afriki*), then, in those cases where Nobiin data is opposed to the data of all other Nubian languages, it is the word that finds better etymological parallels in Nara and Tama that shouud be logically regarded as the Proto-Nubian equivalent. However, in order to avoid circularity or the additional problems that one runs into while investigating chronologically distant language relationship, I intentionally restrict the subject matter of this paper to internal Nubian data only. @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * 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)*. @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * “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, *Jazyki Afriki,* 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 [section I.1](#i1), but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss. +[^16]: In Starostin, *Jazyki Afriki,* 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. ## II. Nobiin / Non-K/D Isoglosses @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ 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 [section I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here). +* (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” → Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here). * “hear”: N *úkké-èr* (= ON *ulg-ir- ~ ulg-ar- ~ ulk-ir-*). ◊ Transparent derivation from *ulug* “ear.” The old verbal root “hear” is present in K/D (K *giɟ-ir*, D *gɪɟ-ir*) and Hill Nubian (Dl *ki-er-* etc.) ← PN *\*gi(ɟ)-*. The situation in Old Nubian/Nobiin is seemingly innovative. * “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.). @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * “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 [section I.1](i1). +* (?) “good”: N *màs.* ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent *gèn* (= ON *gen-*), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better"), is clearly cognate with D *gɛn* “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl *ken*, Debri *kɛŋ* “good,” etc., going back to PN *\*gen-*. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to [I.1](i1). * “hair”: N *šìgír-tí*. ◊ Not attested in ON. The form is similar to K *siːr* “hair,” but phonetic correspondences would be irregular (*\*-g-* should not be deleted in K). On the contrary, D *dɪl-tɪ* “hair” perfectly corresponds to M *tèː-dì*, B *dill-e*, Dl *tel-ti*, etc. and is reconstructible as PN *\*del-* or *\*dɛl-*. Forms in N and K would seem to be innovations — perhaps the result of separate borrowings from a common non-Nubian source. * “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). @@ -262,18 +262,18 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e Based on the presented data and the etymological discussion accompanying (or not accompanying) individual pieces of it, the following observations can be made: -1. Altogether, [section III.2](#iii2) contains 20 items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see [section III.3](#iii3)). -2. Analysis of [section III.1](iii1) shows that in the majority of cases where the solitary lexicostatistical item in Nobiin does have a Common Nubian etymology, semantic comparison speaks strongly in favor of innovation, i.e. semantic shift in Nobiin: “blood” ← “fat,” “hear” ← “ear,” “meat” ← “inside,” “say” ← “tell,” “swim” ← “be on the surface,” “tree” ← “jujube"; a few of these cases may be debatable, but the overall tendency is clear. This observation in itself does not contradict the possibility of early separation of Nobiin, but the near-total lack of words that could be identified as reflexes of Proto-Nubian Swadesh equivalents of the respective meanings in this particular group clearly speaks against this historical scenario. -3. It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D ([section II.1](ii1)) is extremely small, especially when compared to the number of exclusive Nile-Nubian isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D. However, this observation neither contradicts nor supports the early separation hypothesis (since we are not assuming that Nobiin should be grouped together with B, M, or Hill Nubian). +1. Altogether, [III.2](#iii2) contains 20 items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see [III.3](#iii3)). +2. Analysis of [III.1](iii1) shows that in the majority of cases where the solitary lexicostatistical item in Nobiin does have a Common Nubian etymology, semantic comparison speaks strongly in favor of innovation, i.e. semantic shift in Nobiin: “blood” ← “fat,” “hear” ← “ear,” “meat” ← “inside,” “say” ← “tell,” “swim” ← “be on the surface,” “tree” ← “jujube"; a few of these cases may be debatable, but the overall tendency is clear. This observation in itself does not contradict the possibility of early separation of Nobiin, but the near-total lack of words that could be identified as reflexes of Proto-Nubian Swadesh equivalents of the respective meanings in this particular group clearly speaks against this historical scenario. +3. It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D ([II.1](ii1)) is extremely small, especially when compared to the number of exclusive Nile-Nubian isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D. However, this observation neither contradicts nor supports the early separation hypothesis (since we are not assuming that Nobiin should be grouped together with B, M, or Hill Nubian). # Conclusions Based on this brief analysis, I suggest that rejection of the Nile-Nubian hypothesis in favor of an alternative historical scenario as proposed by Bechhaus-Gerst is not recommendable, since it runs into no less than two independent historical oddities/anomalies: 1. assumption of a huge number of basic lexical borrowings from Kenuzi–Dongolawi into Nobiin (even including such elements as demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, typically resistant to borrowing); -2. assumption of total loss of numerous Proto-Nubian basic lexical roots in all branches of Nubian except for Nobiin (19–21 possible items in [section III.2](iii2)). Such conservatism would be highly suspicious; it is also directly contradicted by a few examples such as “water” (q.v.) which clearly indicate that Nobiin is innovative rather than conservative. +2. assumption of total loss of numerous Proto-Nubian basic lexical roots in all branches of Nubian except for Nobiin (19–21 possible items in [III.2](iii2)). Such conservatism would be highly suspicious; it is also directly contradicted by a few examples such as “water” (q.v.) which clearly indicate that Nobiin is innovative rather than conservative. -By contrast, the scenario that retains Nobiin within Nile-Nubian, but postulates the existence of a "pre-Nobiin" substrate or adstrate only assumes one historical oddity, similar to (1) above — the (presumably rapid) replacement of a large chunk of the Nobiin basic lexicon by words borrowed from an unknown substrate. However, it must be noted that the majority of words in [section III.2](iii2) are nouns, rather than verbs or pronouns, and this makes the idea of massive borrowing more plausible than in the case of presumed borrowings from K/D into Nobiin.[^20] +By contrast, the scenario that retains Nobiin within Nile-Nubian, but postulates the existence of a "pre-Nobiin" substrate or adstrate only assumes one historical oddity, similar to (1) above — the (presumably rapid) replacement of a large chunk of the Nobiin basic lexicon by words borrowed from an unknown substrate. However, it must be noted that the majority of words in [III.2](iii2) are nouns, rather than verbs or pronouns, and this makes the idea of massive borrowing more plausible than in the case of presumed borrowings from K/D into Nobiin.[^20] [^20]: For a good typological analogy from a relatively nearby region, cf. the contact situation between Northern Songhay languages and Berber languages as described, e.g., in Souag, *Grammatical Contact in the Sahara.* @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) similarities between his [^24]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 285. [^25]: Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan," pp. 1181–1182. -In *Jazyki Afriki,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,[^26] who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in [section III.2](iii2) yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as: +In *Jazyki Afriki,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,[^26] who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in [III.2](iii2) yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as: * *túllí* “smoke” — cf. Nuer *toːl*, Dinka *tol* “smoke"; * *kìd* “stone” — cf. Luo *kidi*, Shilluk *kit*, etc. “stone";