Merge branch 'master' of https://git.sandpoints.org/UnionForNubianStudies/Dotawo
This commit is contained in:
commit
ac59262ed4
10 changed files with 516 additions and 497 deletions
|
|
@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Don't forget to click on "Comit Changes" to commit the changes.
|
|||
|
||||
```
|
||||
_ _ _ New changes after this _ _ _
|
||||
vincent...
|
||||
vincent....
|
||||
marcell.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic"
|
||||
authors: ["rogermblench.md"]
|
||||
abstract: "East Sudanic is the largest and most complex branch of Nilo-Saharan. First mooted by Greenberg in 1950, who included seven branches, it was expanded in his 1963 publication to include Ama (Nyimang) and Temein and also Kuliak, not now considered part of East Sudanic. However, demonstrating the coherence of East Sudanic and justifying an internal structure for it have remained problematic. The only significant monograph on this topic is Bender1 which uses largely lexical evidence. Bender proposed a subdivision into Ek and En languages, based on pronouns. Most subsequent scholars have accepted his Ek cluster, consisting of Nubian, Nara, Ama, and Taman, but the En cluster (Surmic, E. Jebel, Temein, Daju, Nilotic) is harder to substantiate. Rilly has put forward strong arguments for the inclusion of the extinct Meroitic language as coordinate with Nubian. In the light of these difficulties, the paper explores the potential for morphology to provide evidence for the coherence of East Sudanic. The paper reviews its characteristic tripartite number-marking system, consisting of singulative, plurative, and an unmarked middle term. These are associated with specific segments, the singulative in *t-* and plurative in *k-* as well as a small set of other segments, characterized by complex allomorphy. These are well preserved in some branches, fragmentary in others, and seem to have vanished completely in the Ama group, leaving only traces now fossilized in Dinik stems. The paper concludes that East Sudanic does have a common morphological system, despite its internal lexical diversity. However, this data does not provide any evidence for the unity of the En languages, and it is therefore suggested that East Sudanic be analyzed as consisting of a core of four demonstrably related languages, and five parallel branches which have no internal hierarchy."
|
||||
abstract: "East Sudanic is the largest and most complex branch of Nilo-Saharan. First mooted by Greenberg in 1950, who included seven branches, it was expanded in his 1963 publication to include Ama (Nyimang) and Temein and also Kuliak, not now considered part of East Sudanic. However, demonstrating the coherence of East Sudanic and justifying an internal structure for it have remained problematic. The only significant monograph on this topic is Bender's *The East Sudanic Languages,* which uses largely lexical evidence. Bender proposed a subdivision into Ek and En languages, based on pronouns. Most subsequent scholars have accepted his Ek cluster, consisting of Nubian, Nara, Ama, and Taman, but the En cluster (Surmic, E. Jebel, Temein, Daju, Nilotic) is harder to substantiate. Rilly has put forward strong arguments for the inclusion of the extinct Meroitic language as coordinate with Nubian. In the light of these difficulties, the paper explores the potential for morphology to provide evidence for the coherence of East Sudanic. The paper reviews its characteristic tripartite number-marking system, consisting of singulative, plurative, and an unmarked middle term. These are associated with specific segments, the singulative in *t-* and plurative in *k-* as well as a small set of other segments, characterized by complex allomorphy. These are well preserved in some branches, fragmentary in others, and seem to have vanished completely in the Ama group, leaving only traces now fossilized in Dinik stems. The paper concludes that East Sudanic does have a common morphological system, despite its internal lexical diversity. However, this data does not provide any evidence for the unity of the En languages, and it is therefore suggested that East Sudanic be analyzed as consisting of a core of four demonstrably related languages, and five parallel branches which have no internal hierarchy."
|
||||
keywords: ["East Sudanic", "Nilo-Saharan", "comparative linguistics"]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -188,14 +188,14 @@ The majority of languages she uses to exemplify this principle would now be clas
|
|||
|
||||
These affixes are certainly present in East Sudanic languages along with others. Many languages also permit gemination or consonant doubling. The origins of gemination in suffixes remains in doubt, but may arise from resuffixing, just as long consonants in Niger-Congo can arise from reprefixing in noun class languages. Moreover, nominals in East Sudanic can allow “affix-stacking,” the addition in sequence of one or more affixes as part of historical stratification.
|
||||
|
||||
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 germination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308]
|
||||
The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of gemination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308]
|
||||
|
||||
[^302]: Greenberg, “Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article."
|
||||
[^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
|
||||
|
|
@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Nubian demonstrates strong evidence for tripartite number marking in nouns. Jako
|
|||
|
||||
[^401]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns."
|
||||
|
||||
However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus *ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr,* with a distinct second set *Vɲ ~ Vŋ*. The suffix *-Vnd* may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes.
|
||||
However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus *ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr,* with a distinct second set, *Vɲ ~ Vŋ*. The suffix *-Vnd* may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes.
|
||||
|
||||
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ Nyima covers two related languages, Nyimang and Afitti, now usually known as Ama
|
|||
|
||||
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| person, pl. people | wodáŋ | wàá |
|
||||
| person, [pl]({sc}) people | wodáŋ | wàá |
|
||||
| child | wodéŋ | ɖúriŋ |
|
||||
|
||||
**~~Table 14. Suppletive plural forms in Ama~~**
|
||||
|
|
@ -320,7 +320,9 @@ Otherwise the loss of most plural marking is very marked in comparison with rela
|
|||
|
||||
[^405]: Data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.”
|
||||
|
||||
Despite their lexical affinity to the Ek branch, Nyima languages have all but lost their indicative noun morphology. However, as Norton1 observes, the characteristic *t/k* alternations are well preserved in the verbal system in the distinction between factative and progressive. **Table 16** exemplifies this alternation.
|
||||
Despite their lexical affinity to the Ek branch, Nyima languages have all but lost their indicative noun morphology. However, as Norton observes,[^a6] the characteristic *t/k* alternations are well preserved in the verbal system in the distinction between factative and progressive. **Table 16** exemplifies this alternation.
|
||||
|
||||
[^a6]: Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs"; .
|
||||
|
||||
| Gloss | Factative | Progressive |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -362,7 +364,7 @@ Descriptions of the morphology of Taman languages are very limited. Kellermann p
|
|||
|
||||
[^407]: Data from Kellermann, *Eine grammatische Skizze des Tama auf der Basis der Daten von R.C. Stevenson.*
|
||||
|
||||
As with other East Sudanic languages, once allomorphy is taken into account, number-marking affixes are quite reduced. Tama has *-t, -k,* *-(V)N,* and an underspecified vowel. No examples of synchronic tripartite number marking are given, but the use of *-t* in the singulative and the “moveable” *-k* all point to this as a formerly operating. The underspecified *V* in *-VC* suffixes suggests compounding, as in other East Sudanic languages.
|
||||
As with other East Sudanic languages, once allomorphy is taken into account, number-marking affixes are quite reduced. Tama has *-t, -k,* *-(V)N,* and an underspecified vowel. No examples of synchronic tripartite number marking are given, but the use of *-t* in the singulative and the “moveable” *-k* all point to this as formerly operative. The underspecified *V* in *-VC* suffixes suggests compounding, as in other East Sudanic languages.
|
||||
|
||||
## Surmic
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -530,10 +532,12 @@ Shatt and Laggori at least have considerable diversity of surface affixes markin
|
|||
|
||||
[^t26]: Data from Boyeldieu, *La qualification dans les langues africaines.*
|
||||
|
||||
Boyeldieu also lists a significant number of irregular forms. There are three classes of noun, those with alternation, and those with singulatives and those with plurals. It appears there are now no examples of three-way contrast. Despite the surface variety, allomorphy suggests there are five underlying affixes, *-N, -T, -K, -y,* and *-V* where *V* is a high back vowel. In addition, the -x suffix may an allophone of an underlying fricative, i.e., *-S* (*s ~ z*) which would give Daju a complete set of East Sudanic affixes. Some singulative suffixes, such as *-zɨnɨc,* illustrate multiple compounding. There are, however, no examples of gemination.
|
||||
Boyeldieu also lists a significant number of irregular forms. There are three classes of noun, those with alternation, and those with singulatives and those with plurals. It appears there are now no examples of three-way contrast. Despite the surface variety, allomorphy suggests there are five underlying affixes, *-N, -T, -K, -y,* and *-V* where *V* is a high back vowel. In addition, the *-x* suffix may an allophone of an underlying fricative, i.e., *-S* (*s ~ z*), which would give Daju a complete set of East Sudanic affixes. Some singulative suffixes, such as *-zɨnɨc,* illustrate multiple compounding. There are, however, no examples of gemination.
|
||||
|
||||
The alternating nominal suffixes of Dar Daju described by Aviles present a far simpler set.[^417] Every noun has one of four singular suffixes. Aviles calls these “classificatory” although they have no obvious semantic association. These alternate with four plural suffixes, although these all appear to be allomorphs of *-ge* (**Table 27**).
|
||||
|
||||
[^417]: Aviles, *The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.*
|
||||
|
||||
| Class | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
| 1 | elder | ɉam-ne |
|
||||
|
|
@ -575,9 +579,9 @@ If we presume the same processes of allomorphy as elsewhere in East Sudanic, the
|
|||
|
||||
### East Nilotic
|
||||
|
||||
The only survey of East Nilotic lexicon reamins Vossen's,[^419] and this can provide an impression of number marking morphology, although descriptions of individual languages provide more detail. For example, Kuku has unmarked nominals, with singulatives in some cases, and plurals, both suffixed. **Table 29** shows examples of the main number-marking strategies in Kuku.
|
||||
The only survey of East Nilotic lexicon remains Voßen's,[^419] and this can provide an impression of number marking morphology, although descriptions of individual languages provide more detail. For example, Kuku has unmarked nominals, with singulatives in some cases, and plurals, both suffixed. **Table 29** shows examples of the main number-marking strategies in Kuku.
|
||||
|
||||
[^419]: Vossen, *The Eastern Nilotes.*
|
||||
[^419]: Voßen, *The Eastern Nilotes.*
|
||||
|
||||
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -653,7 +657,7 @@ A feature of East Sudanic, and indeed Nilo-Saharan more generally, is extensive
|
|||
|
||||
**~~Table 32: Allomorphs of East Sudanic nominal affixes~~**
|
||||
|
||||
**Table 33** shows the presence or absence of individual affixes in individual branches, together with affix-stacking and gemination, as well as the table which supports this analysis.
|
||||
**Table 33** shows the presence or absence of individual affixes in each branch, together with affix-stacking and gemination, as well as the table which supports this analysis.
|
||||
|
||||
| Branch | -T | -K | -N | -V | -S | Affix stacking | Gemination | Reference |
|
||||
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
|
||||
|
|
@ -718,47 +722,47 @@ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Bell, Herman.  *Sudan Notes and Records* 7 (1975): pp. 1–36.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Unpublished manuscript. Carbondale: SIU, 2003.
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Carbondale: SIU, 2003.
|
||||
|
||||
Bender, Lionel M. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 45 (1996): 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -768,23 +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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -798,7 +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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -812,17 +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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -838,6 +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.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load diff
|
|
@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Ama is a North Eastern Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north
|
|||
[^1]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language* and “A survey of the phonetics and grammatical structure of the Nuba Mountain languages with particular reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ,” 40: p. 107.
|
||||
[^2]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* §4.
|
||||
|
||||
Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified with leading Ama writers who oversee literacy in the language. For vowels, I distinguish five –ATR brassy vowels ɪɛaɔʊ and five +ATR breathy vowels *ieəou,* as represented fluently by Ama writers using five vowel letters {aeiou} and a saltillo {ꞌ} in breathy words. For tone, Ama’s nearest relative Afitti has been described as having two contrastive tone levels,[^3] but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in **Table 1**.
|
||||
Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified with leading Ama writers who oversee literacy in the language. For vowels, I distinguish five –ATR brassy vowels *ɪɛaɔʊ* and five +ATR breathy vowels *ieəou,* as represented fluently by Ama writers using five vowel letters {aeiou} and a saltillo {ꞌ} in breathy words. For tone, Ama’s nearest relative Afitti has been described as having two contrastive tone levels,[^3] but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in **Table 1**.
|
||||
|
||||
[^3]: de Voogt, “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology,” p. 47.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -40,9 +40,11 @@ A brief overview of Ama morphosyntax can be gained by locating it in the typolog
|
|||
|
||||
**~~Table 2. Ama morphosyntax~~**
|
||||
|
||||
In the remaining sections, we will examine Ama's verb syntax ([2](#syntax)), verb stems ([3](#3)) and verb affixes ([4](#4)) from a comparative perspective, followed by a conclusion ([5](#5)).
|
||||
|
||||
# The Syntax of Ama Verbs {#syntax}
|
||||
|
||||
Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan languages. It has SOV word order, although as we shall see, Ama is not strictly verb-final. It also has coverbs that occur with an inflecting light verb. As in Tama,[^8] most Ama verbs take their own inflections but coverbs are also seen quite frequently. Many Ama coverbs fit Stevenson’s characterization that the coverb occurs before the light verb stem *ɕɪɛ* “do/say” and is either an ideophone (with marked phonology such as reduplication or non-mid tone) or a word marked by the suffix *-ɛ̄n* (typically a borrowed verb).[^9] The form of the Ama coverb suffix *-ɛ̄n* matches the Fur co-verb suffix *-ɛn* ~ *-ɛŋ*.[^10] The transitivity of the predicate is distinguished in Ama by the tone on the light verb *ɕɪ̀ɛ̄/ɕɪ́ɛ̄*.
|
||||
Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan languages. It has SOV word order, although as we shall see, Ama is not strictly verb-final. It also has coverbs that occur with an inflecting light verb. As in Tama,[^8] most Ama verbs take their own inflections but coverbs are also seen quite frequently. Many Ama coverbs fit Stevenson’s characterization that the coverb occurs before the light verb stem *ɕɪɛ* “do/say” and is either an ideophone (with marked phonology such as reduplication or non-mid tone) or a word marked by the suffix *-ɛ̄n* (typically a borrowed verb).[^9] The form of the Ama coverb suffix *-ɛ̄n* matches the Fur coverb suffix *-ɛn* ~ *-ɛŋ*.[^10] The transitivity of the predicate is distinguished in Ama by the tone on the light verb *ɕɪ̀ɛ̄/ɕɪ́ɛ̄*.
|
||||
|
||||
[^8]: Dimmendaal, “Introduction” to *Coding Participant Marking,* pp. 6–7.
|
||||
[^9]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 174.
|
||||
|
|
@ -101,7 +103,7 @@ The adjoined relative clause strategy means that verbs tend not to occur in noun
|
|||
|
||||
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].”
|
||||
[^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].”
|
||||
|
||||
{{< gloss "(6)" >}}
|
||||
{r} Plural noun phrase specifier (elicited)
|
||||
|
|
@ -117,7 +119,7 @@ Nevertheless, the adjoined relative clause strategy is an innovative feature of
|
|||
|
||||
We will return to this tendency to express relative clauses and number late in the clause after considering other evidence from verb stems.
|
||||
|
||||
# Ama Verb Stems
|
||||
# Ama Verb Stems {#3}
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson discovered the existence of two stems of each Ama verb.[^15] The forms of the two stems are not fully predictable from each other in general, and their usage depends on aspect.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -125,7 +127,7 @@ Stevenson discovered the existence of two stems of each Ama verb.[^15] The forms
|
|||
|
||||
## The Factative–Progressive Distinction
|
||||
|
||||
The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite and indefinite aspect, and relabeled as perfective and imperfective by more recent authors. However, the usage of the former stem meets the definition of “factative,”[^16] such that it has a past perfective reading when used for an active verb like “eat,” but a present continuous reading when used for a stative verb like “know.” The other stem has a present progressive reading, which is marginal for stative verbs where the meaning contribution of progressive to an already continuous verb is highly marked.[^17] The factative–progressive analysis is helpful when we consider the history of these stems below.
|
||||
The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite and indefinite aspect, and relabeled as perfective and imperfective by more recent authors. However, the usage of the former stem meets the definition of “factative,”[^16] such that it has a past perfective reading when used for an active verb like “eat,” but a present continuous reading when used for a stative verb like “know.” The other stem has a present progressive reading, which is marginal for stative verbs (as indicated by "?") where the meaning contribution of progressive to an already continuous verb is highly marked.[^17] The factative–progressive analysis is helpful when we consider the history of these stems below.
|
||||
|
||||
[^16]: Welmers, *African Language Structures,* pp. 346, 348.
|
||||
[^17]: Compare Mufwene, “Stativity and the Progressive,” where it is argued that progressive is a stativizing category in a number of European and Bantu languages, although progressive verb forms typically have a more transient interpretation, and lexical statives a more permanent interpretation.
|
||||
|
|
@ -221,7 +223,7 @@ A longer list of examples of this alternation shown in **Table 8** was documente
|
|||
|
||||
T and K are well-known markers of singular and plural in Nilo-Saharan languages,[^21] but in Ama and Afitti where there is no T/K morphology on the noun, essentially the same alternation (*\*t* becomes dental in the Nyima branch)[^22] is found on the verb. It also cuts into the characteristic CVC verb root shape, implying that it is an innovation on the verb. I therefore propose that this class of verbs attests the Nyima cognate of the wider Nilo-Saharan T/K alternation. This entails a chain of events in which the T/K alternation first moved from the noun (singular/plural) to the verb (singulactional/pluractional), and then shifted in meaning from verbal number to verbal aspect (factative/progressive).
|
||||
|
||||
[^21]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* pp. 115, 132; Bryan, “The T/K Languages"; Gilley, “Katcha Noun Morphology,” §2.5, §3, §4.
|
||||
[^21]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* pp. 115, 132; Bryan, “The T/K Languages"; Gilley, “Katcha Noun Morphology,” §2.5, §3, §4; .
|
||||
[^22]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 299.
|
||||
|
||||
Both steps in this proposed chain are indeed plausible cross-linguistically. As to the first step, the possibility of nominal plural markers being extended to verbal pluractionals is familiar from Chadic languages, where the same formal strategies such as first-syllable reduplication or *a*-infixation may be found in plural nouns and pluractional verbs.[^23] In the Nyima languages, the productive innovation at this step appears to have been the extension of singulative T to a verbal singulactional marker. This is seen in the fact that *t̪-* alternates with other consonants as well as *k* in Ama (*t̪ān-ɛ̄/wɛ̄n* “talk,” *t̪ɛ̀l-ɛ̄/wɛ̄ɛ́n* “see,” *t̪àl/tām* “eat”), or is prefixed in front of the root (*t̪ʊ́-wár-ɔ̄/wār* “want,” *t̪ī-ŋīl-ē/ŋɪ̄l* “laugh,” *t̪ì-fìl-è/fɪ̄l* “dance,” *t̪ū-mūs-ò/mús-èɡ* “run,” *t̪ʊ̄-máɪ́/máɪ́* “know,” *t̪-īlm-ò/ɪ́lɪ́m* “milk”). There is also external evidence from Nubian and Nara cited in **Table 6** above that *\*k* is the original initial consonant in *\*kal* “eat” replaced by *t̪-* in Ama and Afitti.
|
||||
|
|
@ -230,7 +232,7 @@ Both steps in this proposed chain are indeed plausible cross-linguistically. As
|
|||
|
||||
As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect is supported by semantic affinity between pluractional and progressive. Progressive aspect often entails that a process that is iterated ("is coughing," "is milking") over the interval concerned.[^24] In Leggbo,[^25] a Niger-Congo language, the progressive form can have a pluractional reading in some verbs, and conversely, verbs that fail to form the regular progressive *C# → CC-i* because they already end in *CCi* can use the pluractional suffix *-azi* instead to express progressive aspect. In Spanish,[^26] a Romance language, there is a periphrastic paradigm between progressive (*estar* “be” + gerund), frequentative pluractional (*andar* “walk” + gerund), and incremental pluractional (*ir* “go” + gerund). The two Spanish pluractionals have been called “pseudo-progressives,” but conversely one could think of progressive aspect as pseudo-pluractional. What is somewhat surprising in Ama is that progressive stems, being morphologically more basic (see **Table 5**), lack any devoted progressive affixes that would have formerly served as pluractional markers.[^27] However, some progressive marking is found in irregular alternations that reveal former pluractional stems.
|
||||
|
||||
[^24]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, *A Grammar of Lumun,* §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains.
|
||||
[^24]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, *A Grammar of Lumun, Vol. 2,* §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains.
|
||||
[^25]: Hyman & Udoh, “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.”
|
||||
[^26]: Laca, “Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.”
|
||||
[^27]: See, however, §4.2 below which purports to recover the missing extension.
|
||||
|
|
@ -238,7 +240,7 @@ As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect i
|
|||
In *t̪àl/tām* “eat,” the final *l/m* alternation is unique to this item in available word lists, although *l/n* occurs elsewhere (*kɪ́l/kín* “hear,” *t̪ɛ̀l-ɛ̄/wɛ̄ɛ́n* “see”). The final *l/m* alternation is nevertheless also found in Afitti (*t̪ə̀lɔ̀/tə̀m* “eat”) and in Kordofan Nubian (*\*kol ~ kel/\*kam* “eat”).[^28] Kordofan Nubian *\*kam* is used with a plural object, a pluractional function, so in the Nyima branch the proposed shift pluractional → progressive derives the progressive function of final m found in Ama, just as it does for the initial *k* in *t̪/k* alternations or the *t* in *t̪àl/tām* “eat.” Furthermore, a final plosive in Old Nubian (ⲕⲁⲡ-[^29]; Nobiin *kab-*) suggests that the unique *m* in “eat” arose by assimilation of the final nasal (realized as *n* in the other Ama verbs mentioned) to a following *\*b*, that was fully assimilated or incorporated in Old Nubian.
|
||||
|
||||
[^28]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 478.
|
||||
[^29]: Ibid; Old Nubian also attests the lateral in a hapax form κⲁⲗ-.
|
||||
[^29]: Ibid; Old Nubian also attests the lateral in a hapax form ⲕⲁⲗ-.
|
||||
|
||||
Seen in this light, the significance of moving T/K morphology onto verbs in the Nyima branch is that it renewed an existing system of irregular singulational/pluractional alternations. We then have a tangible account of where Ama’s missing noun morphology went, because formerly nominal morphology is found on the verb instead.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -293,11 +295,11 @@ A role for concreteness in grammar was previously proposed in the Pirahã langu
|
|||
{r} “The people are many.” (“There are many people.”)
|
||||
{{< /gloss >}}
|
||||
|
||||
# Ama Verbal affixes
|
||||
# Ama Verbal affixes {#4}
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -380,7 +382,7 @@ Ama has extensions that fall within the family of pluractionals that associate p
|
|||
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*.
|
||||
[^36]: I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ* (throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc})) "threw to"/"is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix *-ɪ́*.
|
||||
[^37]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 81.
|
||||
[^38]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903, which also shows a similar plural object suffix *-to*.
|
||||
[^39]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187, where *ɨ* is used in the same way as contemporary *ɪ*. Tone was not recorded.
|
||||
|
|
@ -391,16 +393,16 @@ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
| 1 | gloss | 2 | gloss | 3 | gloss |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you [sg]({sc} milk | kaɲál | he/she milks |
|
||||
| kó-ɡaɲal | we (du.) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you [du]({sc} milk | ɡaɲál-i | they [du]({sc} milk |
|
||||
| kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | we (pl.) milk | ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | you [pl]({sc} milk | ɡaɲá-tər-i | they [pl]({sc} milk |
|
||||
| ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you [sg]({sc}) milk | kaɲál | he/she milks |
|
||||
| kó-ɡaɲal | we (du.) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you [du]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲál-i | they [du]({sc}) milk |
|
||||
| kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | we (pl.) milk | ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | you [pl]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲá-tər-i | they [pl]({sc}) milk |
|
||||
|
||||
**~~Table 13. Afitti pluractional *-t(ə)r* not used with dual subjects~~**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -412,16 +414,16 @@ 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 Pluractionals
|
||||
### Second Historic Pluractional
|
||||
|
||||
Ama’s second distributive suffix *-r* corresponds to the Nubian plural object marker *\*-er,*[^52] and since this suffix is much less productive in Ama, it may well have been bleached of its original meaning. In the Kordofan Nubian language Uncu, the cognate extension *-er* has the same function as the irregular pluractional stem *(kol/)kom* “eat,” as both occur with plural objects.[^53] Similarly in Ama, some trills shown below occur in the same category as the irregular progressive stem *(t̪àl/)tām* “eat,” providing evidence that the trill originally marked the second Nyima pluractional that is now progressive.
|
||||
|
||||
[^52]: .
|
||||
[^53]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language.”
|
||||
|
||||
The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks unexpected events (*swāy-ɔ́* “was cultivating” → *swāy-ɔ̄r-ɔ́* “was unexpectedly cultivating”, where the vowel has harmonized to the following vowel). However, this suffix is also used to disambiguate progressive verb forms from otherwise indistinguishable factatives (*sāŋ-ɛ̄n/sāŋ-ɛ̄n, sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n* “search (du.)”),[^54] providing what looks like an alternate progressive stem to take the dual suffix. Similarly, the negative imperative construction in Ama requires a progressive stem with *-ar* after the negative particle *fá* as shown in **Table 14** below. Inflections occurring in this construction are a plural subject marker *à-* on the particle, and dual or distributive marking on the verb. Only the dual suffix can occur without *-ar*, where in my data the dual suffix adds to the longer stem with *-ar* unless the short stem is suppletive (*t̪ī-ə̀/túŋ* “sleep,” t̪àl/*tām* “eat”) and can take the dual suffix without ambiguity with factative aspect.
|
||||
The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks unexpected events (*swāy-ɔ́* “was cultivating” → *swāy-ɔ̄r-ɔ́* “was unexpectedly cultivating,” where the vowel has harmonized to the following vowel). However, this suffix is also used to disambiguate progressive verb forms from otherwise indistinguishable factatives (*sāŋ-ɛ̄n/sāŋ-ɛ̄n, sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n* “search [du]({sc})”),[^54] providing what looks like an alternate progressive stem to take the dual suffix. Similarly, the negative imperative construction in Ama requires a progressive stem with *-ar* after the negative particle *fá* as shown in **Table 14** below. Inflections occurring in this construction are a plural subject marker *à-* on the particle, and dual or distributive marking on the verb. Only the dual suffix can occur without *-ar*, where in my data the dual suffix adds to the longer stem with *-ar* unless the short stem is suppletive (*t̪ī-ə̀/túŋ* “sleep,” t̪àl/*tām* “eat”) and can take the dual suffix without ambiguity with factative aspect.
|
||||
|
||||
[^54]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 40.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -454,7 +456,7 @@ The trill thus fuses with certain vowels that behave like theme vowels for creat
|
|||
|
||||
### Innovative Dual-Participant Pluractional
|
||||
|
||||
A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*.[^58] The older form of the Ama dual suffix is *-ɪn,*[^59] which has been noted to resemble reciprocal suffixes in other Eastern Sudanic languages, such as Kordofan Nubian *-in*, Daju *-din*, Temein *-ɛ*, and also Ik *-in* of the Kuliak group.[^60] In Ama, its function has evolved to dual reciprocal and other dual participant readings, so for example *wʊ̀s-ɛ̄n* “greet (du.)” can refer to when two people greeted each other, or someone greeted two people, or two people greeted someone.[^61] The dual suffix is regularly used in Ama folktales to link two primary characters.[^62] Although such dual participant marking is extremely rare globally, it becomes possible in Nyima languages in particular where the incremental-distributive pluractional leaves a paradigmatic gap for dual subjects, as still seen in Afitti in **Table 13** above, which Ama has filled in.
|
||||
A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*.[^58] The older form of the Ama dual suffix is *-ɪn,*[^59] which has been noted to resemble reciprocal suffixes in other Eastern Sudanic languages, such as Kordofan Nubian *-in*, Daju *-din*, Temein *-ɛ*, and also Ik *-in* of the Kuliak group.[^60] In Ama, its function has evolved to dual reciprocal and other dual participant readings, so for example *wʊ̀s-ɛ̄n* “greet [du]({sc})” can refer to when two people greeted each other, or someone greeted two people, or two people greeted someone.[^61] The dual suffix is regularly used in Ama folktales to link two primary characters.[^62] Although such dual participant marking is extremely rare globally, it becomes possible in Nyima languages in particular where the incremental-distributive pluractional leaves a paradigmatic gap for dual subjects, as still seen in Afitti in **Table 13** above, which Ama has filled in.
|
||||
|
||||
[^58]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” §3.
|
||||
[^59]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 28.
|
||||
|
|
@ -462,7 +464,7 @@ A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ
|
|||
[^61]: Ibid., p. 120.
|
||||
[^62]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 84, 87.
|
||||
|
||||
# Conclusion: Ama as a Matured North Eastern Sudanic Language
|
||||
# Conclusion: Ama as a Matured North Eastern Sudanic Language {#5}
|
||||
|
||||
Ama verbs show a number of connections to Nubian and other Eastern Sudanic languages in their clause-final syntax, CVC root shape, and certain affixes. However, these connections are more in form than meaning, as the semantics is highly innovative in such notable shifts as plural → pluractional → progressive and reciprocal → dual, and in the drive towards concretization that has moved the expression of both relative clauses and number out of noun phrases to after the verb. In addition, the movement of low-tone suffixes to the final suffix slot, while itself a formal development, has further advanced the morphologization of aspect, so that stem selection, affix selection, and affix order all vary with aspect in Ama verbs. Next to these considerable changes, Ama’s stable distributive pluractional stands out as indicative of a wider Eastern Sudanic verbal category.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -476,7 +478,7 @@ Ama nominals, similarly, are known for their relatively rich case systems, but s
|
|||
The conclusion that Ama verbs (and post-verbal syntax) have matured as a result of Nyima’s isolated position, away from the river systems that hosted speakers of other languages in the Sudan region in the past, faces the possible difficulty that contacts have in fact been proposed between Nyima and other Nuba Mountain groups. Thus, it is proposed that the Niger-Congo Nuba Mountain group Heiban borrowed accusative marking and basic vocabulary from Nyima.[^65] Such contact would have put a brake on maturation in Nyima, because the use of proto-Nyima for inter-group communication between first-language Nyima users and second-language Heiban users would not have supported further growth in complexity.[^66] However, it is not realistic that such contacts lasted for a large proportion of Nyima history, but rather were fairly temporary periods punctuating Nyima’s longer isolation. Thus, the Heiban group has now developed separately in the eastern Nuba Mountains for something approaching two millennia (given the internal diversity of the ten Heiban languages found there) since its contact with Nyima.
|
||||
|
||||
[^65]: Norton, “Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.”
|
||||
[^66]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 175, notes the similarity of Ama’s nominal plural *ŋi* to a similar plural clitic *ŋi* [sic] in Heiban, which here might be interpreted as a pidginization effect in which the universally well-motivated category of nominal plurality was renewed in Nyima during inter-group communication after the earlier loss of number affixes. However, Stevenson is unusually in error in this passage as the Heiban form is actually *-ŋa* as he himself documented (ibid, p. 28). Subsequent lowering to a in Heiban cannot be ruled out (he notes Heiban’s relative Talodi has *ɛ* here), but it is also quite possible that *ŋi* was sourced internally, as the high front vowel is also the common element in the plural pronouns *ə̀ŋí/ɲí/ə̀ní* 1pl/2pl/3pl).
|
||||
[^66]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 175, notes the similarity of Ama’s nominal plural *ŋi* to a similar plural clitic *ŋi* [sic] in Heiban, which here might be interpreted as a pidginization effect in which the universally well-motivated category of nominal plurality was renewed in Nyima during inter-group communication after the earlier loss of number affixes. However, Stevenson is unusually in error in this passage as the Heiban form is actually *-ŋa* as he himself documented (ibid, p. 28). Subsequent lowering to a in Heiban cannot be ruled out (he notes Heiban’s relative Talodi has *ɛ* here), but it is also quite possible that *ŋi* was sourced internally, as the high front vowel is also the common element in the plural pronouns *ə̀ŋí/ɲí/ə̀ní* [1pl/2pl/3pl]({sc})).
|
||||
|
||||
Some time after the contact with Heiban, Rottland and Jakobi note the likelihood of contact of Kordofan Nubian with Ama and Afitti in the north-west Nuba Mountains before the arrival of Arabic as a *lingua franca* in the Nuba Mountains.[^67] Ama and Afitti are more lexically divergent than Kordofan Nubian and therefore were probably already separate communities when the Kordofan Nubians arrived. However, the innovation of dual marking on Ama verbs in the period after separation from Afitti still shows the hallmarks of maturation. It adds an extremely rare category, increases the occurrence of morphologically complex verbs by using a verbal marker in dual participant contexts that were not previously marked, and adds redundancy when agreeing with noun phrases containing two referents. This mature feature of Ama again suggests that any language contact with Kordofan Nubian occurred for only part of the time since Ama separated from Afitti.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -484,7 +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]: .
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -521,78 +523,78 @@ This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification
|
|||
|
||||
# Bibliography
|
||||
|
||||
Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed. *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.* PhD Thesis. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1988.
|
||||
Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed.  PhD Thesis. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1988.
|
||||
|
||||
Bryan, Margaret A. “The T/K languages: A New Substratum.” *Africa* 29 (1959): pp. 1–21.
|
||||
Bryan, Margaret A.  *Africa* 29 (1959): pp. 1–21.
|
||||
|
||||
Comfort, Jade. “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163.
|
||||
Comfort, Jade.  *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163.
|
||||
|
||||
Corbett, Greville. *Number.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
|
||||
Corbett, Greville.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
|
||||
|
||||
Dahl, Östen. *The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity.* Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
|
||||
Dahl, Östen.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
|
||||
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. “Africa’s Verb-Final Languages.” In *A Linguistic Geography of Africa,* edited by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: pp. 272–308.
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit.  In *A Linguistic Geography of Africa,* edited by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: pp. 272–308.
|
||||
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. “Introduction.” In *Coding Participant Marking: Construction Types in Twelve African Languages,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009: pp. 1–22.
|
||||
Dimmendaal, Gerrit.  In *Coding Participant Marking: Construction Types in Twelve African Languages,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009: pp. 1–22.
|
||||
|
||||
Everett, Daniel. “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language.” *Current Anthropology* 46, no. 4 (2005): pp. 621–646.
|
||||
Everett, Daniel.  *Current Anthropology* 46, no. 4 (2005): pp. 621–646.
|
||||
|
||||
Everett, Daniel. “Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms.” *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 405–442.
|
||||
Everett, Daniel.  *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 405–442.
|
||||
|
||||
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. “The Plural in Chadic.” In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56.
|
||||
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt.  In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56.
|
||||
|
||||
Gilley, Leoma. “Katcha Noun Morphology.” 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.* Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963.
|
||||
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, and Imelda Udoh. “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.” 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. “Typology Put to Practical Use: A Participatory Approach to Initial Grammar Research.” In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17-21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger and 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. “Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.” In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87-92.
|
||||
Laca, Brenda.  In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87–92.
|
||||
|
||||
Mufwene, Salikoko S. *Stativity and the Progressive.* Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984.
|
||||
Mufwene, Salikoko S.  Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984.
|
||||
|
||||
Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky & Cilene Rodrigues. “Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment.” *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 355–404.
|
||||
Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky & Cilene Rodrigues.  *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 355–404.
|
||||
|
||||
Newman, Paul. “Pluractional Verbs: An Overview.” In *Verbal Plurality and Distributivity,* edited by Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Brenda Laca. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012: pp. 185–209.
|
||||
Newman, Paul.  In *Verbal Plurality and Distributivity,* edited by Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Brenda Laca. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012: pp. 185–209.
|
||||
|
||||
Norton, Russell. “Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages: Evidence from Pronoun Categories and Lexicostatistics.” 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.  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. “Number in Ama Verbs.” *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. “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.  In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122.
|
||||
|
||||
Rilly, Claude. *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* Louvain: Peeters, 2010.
|
||||
Rilly, Claude.  Louvain: Peeters, 2010.
|
||||
|
||||
Rottland, Franz, and Angelika Jakobi. “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269.
|
||||
Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi.  *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269.
|
||||
|
||||
Smits, Heleen. *A Grammar of Lumun: A Kordofanian Language of Sudan.* 2 vols. Utrecht: LOT, 2017.
|
||||
Smits, Heleen.  Utrecht: LOT, 2017.
|
||||
|
||||
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.  *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.  *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland. *Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).* Unpublished typescript, 1938.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland.  Unpublished typescript, 1938.
|
||||
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistiche Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64.
|
||||
Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi.  *Afrikanistiche Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64.
|
||||
|
||||
Stirtz, Timothy. *A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan.* Utrecht: LOT, 2011.
|
||||
Stirtz, Timothy.  Utrecht: LOT, 2011.
|
||||
|
||||
Trudgill, Peter. *Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity.* Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
|
||||
|
||||
Voogt, Alex de. “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology.” *Studies in African Linguistics* 38, no. 1 (2009): pp. 35–52.
|
||||
Voogt, Alex de.  *Studies in African Linguistics* 38, no. 1 (2009): pp. 35–52.
|
||||
|
||||
Voogt, Alex de. “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911.
|
||||
Voogt, Alex de.  *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911.
|
||||
|
||||
Waag, Christine. *The Fur Verb and Its Context.* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2010.
|
||||
Waag, Christine.  Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2010.
|
||||
|
||||
Welmers, William. *African Language Structures.* Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
|
||||
Welmers, William.  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
|
||||
|
||||
Werner, Roland. *Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nubian).* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
|
||||
Werner, Roland.  Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
|
||||
|
||||
Wolff, Ekkehard. “Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.” In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 199–233.
|
||||
Wolff, Ekkehard.  In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 199–233.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
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: Angelika Jakobi
|
|||
|
||||
# Biography
|
||||
|
||||
Something about the author.
|
||||
Angelika Jakobi holds a PhD in African linguistics from Hamburg University. Based on extensive periods of linguistic field work in Sudan and Tchad, her research has focused on some languages of the northeastern branch of Nilo-Saharan, particularly Fur, Nyima, Zaghawa, and Nubian. She is the author of *The Fur Language* (1990) and the compiler and annotator of the bibliography *The Nubian Languages* (1993, with Tanja Kümmerle). She has also published a study of the Saharan language Zaghawa, *Grammaire du beria* (2004, with Joachim Crass). In her articles she has explored aspects of semantics, morphosyntax, transitivity, grammatical relations, and case as well as historical-comparative issues. Although she has retired from her last position at Cologne University in 2016, she is still actively engaged in research.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -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).
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: Russel Norton
|
||||
title: Russell Norton
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Biography
|
||||
|
||||
Something about the author.
|
||||
Russell Norton is a Senior Lecturer in linguistics at the Theological College of Northern Nigeria and a linguistics consultant at SIL International. He is the author of several articles on various Eastern Sudanic and Niger-Congo languages, and former editor of *ccasional Papers in the study of Sudanese Languages.* His research interests include the documentation, description, history and ecology of languages of Nigeria and Sudan.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Although Bender, Rilly, and Dimmendaal include the Nyima languages within NES,[^
|
|||
|
||||
### The Inclusion of Meroitic
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, the inclusion of Meroitic in NES has long been a point of contention owing to our fragmentary comprehension of the language.[^a9] In this respect, the work of Claude Rilly represents an enormous leap forward in our understanding, which can now with relatively strong certainty be classified as Nilo-Saharan, in particular Northern East Sudanic.[^a11] His contribution ["Personal Markers in Meroitic”](article:rilly.md) provides for the first time a systematic overview of person marking in Meroitic, no doubt opening up further avenues in comparative Northern East Sudanic linguistics.
|
||||
Finally, the inclusion of Meroitic in NES has long been a point of contention owing to our fragmentary comprehension of the language.[^a9] In this respect, the work of Claude Rilly represents an enormous leap forward in our understanding, which can now with relatively strong certainty be classified as Nilo-Saharan, in particular Northern East Sudanic.[^a11] His contribution ["Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic”](article:rilly.md) provides for the first time a systematic overview of person marking in Meroitic, no doubt opening up further avenues in comparative Northern East Sudanic linguistics.
|
||||
|
||||
[^a1]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 130.
|
||||
[^a2]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1.
|
||||
|
|
@ -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