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

third effort matic

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Alexandros Tsakos 2022-12-01 18:16:58 +01:00
parent 4d7df51a1d
commit b66c6143b8
35 changed files with 0 additions and 10652 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

3
content/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Root"
---

BIN
content/article/.DS_Store vendored
View file

Binary file not shown.

3
content/article/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: "List of articles"
---

868
content/article/blench.md
View file

@ -1,868 +0,0 @@
---
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 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"]
---
# Introduction
The East (formerly “Eastern”) Sudanic languages, spread between Chad and Northern Tanzania, constitute a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a proposed membership of nine families, including Nilotic, the largest and most complex group. We owe the original concept of East Sudanic to Greenberg who attributed seven branches to it,[^1] shown in **Table 1**, together with their modern names. Families unknown to Greenberg are added in the “Current” column.
[^1]: Greenberg, "Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.”
| Greenberg (1950) | Current |
| :--- | :--- |
| Nubian | Nubian + Meroitic |
| Beir-Didinga | Surmic |
| Barea | Nara |
| Tabi | Eastern Jebel |
| Merarit | Taman |
| Dagu | Daju |
| Southern | Nilotic |
| | Nyima |
| | Temein |
**~~Table 1. Greenberg's original concept of East Sudanic~~**
Greenberg was not aware of Nyimang and Temein, and these were added later in Greenberg together with Kuliak,[^2] now considered by Bender to be a separate branch of Nilo-Saharan.[^3] Greenberg claimed East Sudanic was part of “Chari-Nile,” a group which included Central Sudanic, Kunama, and Bertha.[^4] Chari-Nile is also now not thought to be valid.[^5] Somewhat confusingly, Tucker had earlier published a book entitled *The Eastern Sudanic Languages* but it is largely about Central Sudanic, Ubangian, and Nilotic languages.[^6] Prior to Greenberg, many individual languages or small groups had been described in Tucker & Bryan, but they were not combined into a larger unit.[^7] Greenberg makes a large number of proposals for grammatical and lexical isomorphs, which more recent scholars have not followed up in detail.[^8]
[^2]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa.*
[^3]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages.*
[^4]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa.*
[^5]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages.*
[^6]: Tucker, *The Eastern Sudanic Languages, vol. 1.*
[^7]: Tucker & Bryan, *The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.*
[^8]: Greenberg, “Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.”
East Sudanic languages are by far the most well-known branch of Nilo-Saharan, with Nilotic and Nubian the main focal points. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the cultural prominence of the speakers and their relative accessibility. However, rather like Bantu, Nilotic represents a recent expansion and is only a fragment of the internal diversity of Eastern Sudanic. Nubian has attracted researchers because of its old manuscript attestations and epigraphic tradition. It has long been suspected that the extinct Meroitic language is part of East Sudanic,[^9] but the small number of unambiguously identified lexemes made this argument difficult to sustain. However, with the work of Rilly and Rilly & De Voogt this argument can be considered secure.[^10] Rilly places Meroitic as coordinate with proto-Nubian as part of his “Northern East Sudanic” family. **Map 1** shows their approximate distribution in recent times.
[^9]: E.g., “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship.”
[^10]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Rilly & De Voogt, *The Meroitic Language and Writing System.*
![The East Sudanic languages](../static/images/east-sudanic.JPG "The East Sudanic languages")
**~~Map 1. The East Sudanic languages~~**
The nine branches remain the accepted listing with some relatively minor reassignments. There have been few attempts to synthesise data on East Sudanic, the unpublished MSc thesis of Ross,[^12] who was a student of Bender, and Bender’s own studies and monograph.[^13] The study by Starostin of Nubian–Nara–Tama is part of a project to re-evaluate East Sudanic as a whole from the point of view of lexicostatistics.[^14] Bender gives basic phonologies representative of each branch, as well as an argument for the coherence of East Sudanic based principally on lexical evidence. This latter was locally printed in Carbondale and is best described as problematic to read for those who are not strongly motivated to penetrate its forest of acronyms and compressed citations. It has therefore had a very limited impact on Nilo-Saharan studies. However, it is full of interesting suggestions for isoglosses and presents an elaborate table of sound correspondences, so it undoubtedly merits close study. Unlike Bender’s Omotic compendium,[^15] it does not include original lexical forms systematically, and hence each entry needs to be rechecked against original and more current source data. It is safe to say Bender’s publications did not have a resounding impact on the scholarly community.
[^12]: Ross, *A Preliminary Attempt at the Reconstruction of Proto-East Sudanic Phonology and Lexicon.*
[^13]: Bender, “Genetic subgrouping of East Sudanic"; Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages.*
[^14]: Starostin, “Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I”; ![Starostin, this issue](article:starostin.md).
[^15]: Bender, *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.*
Despite its previous acceptance, the published arguments for the coherence of East Sudanic remain weak. No unambiguous innovations, lexical or phonological, mark all branches as members. Some researchers have expressed scepticism about its unity. However, studies of East Sudanic by Dimmendaal broadly accept the classification of Bender,[^16] although using very different criteria for accepting its coherence. However, Güldemann remains sceptical, arguing that internal typological differences may be evidence for convergence rather than genetic affiliation.[^16a] The [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/) takes a far more extreme position, treating all branches as distinct families.
[^16]: Dimmendaal, “Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan"; Dimmendaal, *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages*; Dimmendaal, "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin.”
[^16a]: Güldemann, “The Historical-Comparative Status of East Sudanic.”
# Lexical evidence
## East Sudanic as a Unity
Claims for the reality of East Sudanic are largely based on lexical evidence. Bender proposes the most significant set of proposals in this area,[^101] but Greenberg’s original argument also includes some suggestions. Assuming the coherence of East Sudanic, the proposals for an internal structure are tenuous. Bender has argued in various places that East Sudanic has two main subdivisions, which he notates Ek and En, on the basis of the first person independent pronoun (**Table 2**).[^102]
[^101]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages.*
[^102]: Ibid.; Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages.*
| Ek | Branch | En | Branch |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| E1 | Nubian | E2 | Surmic |
| E3 | Nara | E4 | Eastern Jebel |
| E5 | Nyima | E6 | Temein(?) |
| E7 | Taman | E8 | Daju |
| | | E9 | Nilotic |
**~~Table 2. Bender’s subclassification of East Sudanic~~**
The first person singular subject pronoun in East Sudanic, first set out by Greenberg and later supplemented by Bender, forms a distinctive set (**Table 3**):
| Branch | Language(s) | Form |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Nubian | Nobiin | *ay* |
| Nara | Nara | *ag* |
| Nyima | Ama | *a(i)* |
| Taman | All | *wa, wo* |
| Surmic | Didinga | *a* |
| Surmic | Kwegu | *aan* |
| Eastern Jebel | Gaahmg | *aan* |
| Temein | Ronge | *nan* |
| Daju | Nyala | *aaga* |
| West Nilotic | Dinka | *an* |
| East Nilotic | Masai, Turkana, Nandi, Teso | *nanu* |
| South Nilotic | Pokot | *anii* |
**~~Table 3. First person singular subject pronoun in East Sudani[^103]~~**
[^103]: Data from Bender, “The Genetic Position of Nilotic *i*” and Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* supplemented with more recent sources.
Even this dataset does not entirely support Bender’s division, since Daju appears to fall in the Ek group. The forms with a nasal largely correspond to Bender’s En, while those without nasals correspond to Ek. However, on this evidence, the presence of a velar cannot be said to characterise all Ek languages.
## The Ek Languages
Bender, Ehret, Rilly, and Starostin agree that at least Nubian, Nara, Tama, and perhaps Nyimang form a subgroup (Ehret’s “Astaboran”).[^104] The lexical tables below provide a summary version of the compilations of Rilly sometimes with updated citations. **Table 4** shows the Ek forms for “drink” which seem to refer to a protoform *\*dii*.
[^104]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages*; Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages*; Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan*; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*, and Starostin, "Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I.”
| Subgroup | Language | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Nara | | *líí* |
| Nubian | Dilling | *di* |
| Nubian | Midob | *tìì* |
| Nyima | Ama | *lì* |
| Taman | Proto-Taman | *\*li(y)-* |
**~~Table 4. Ek lexical isogloss, “drink,” *\*dii*[^t4]~~**
[^t4]: Nara and Ama data from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Dilling, Midob, and proto-Taman data from Starostin, "Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I.”
**Table 5** shows a common form for “house,” assuming Nubian preserves a velar lost in the other languages. The vowel is not entirely clear, but I provisionally reconstruct a mid central vowel.
| Subgroup | Language | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Nubian | Midob | *kàr* |
| Nubian | Nyala | *aare* |
| Nara | | *wǒl* |
| Nyima | Ama | *wel* |
| Taman | Tama | *wal* |
**~~Table 5. Ek lexical isogloss, “house,” *\*kəl*[^t5]~~**
[^t5]: Midob data from Werner, *Tìdn-áal*; Nyala data from Thelwall, “A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju”; Nara data from Hayward, “Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara”; Ama data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon”; Tama data from Edgar, “First Steps toward Proto-Tama.”
*Table 6* shows a lexical isogloss for “mouth,” *\*aŋəl.* However, the Eastern Jebel language Gaamhg also appears to be either cognate or else a loan, so this constitutes slightly imperfect evidence.
| Subgroup | Language | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Nubian | Andaandi | *agil* |
| Nara | | *aùlò* |
| Nyima | Ama | *ŋàl* |
| Taman | Abu Sharib | *awl* |
| E Jebel | Gaahmg | *ag* |
**~~Table 6. Ek lexical isogloss, “mouth,” *\*aŋəl*[^t6]~~**
[^t6]: Andaandi, Nara, and Abu Sharib data from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Ama data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon”; Gaahmg data from Stirtz, *A Grammar of Gaahmg*.
**Table 7** presents the evidence for the lexical isogloss, “two,” perhaps *\*wari(m)* if the *-m* in Nyima is to be included.
| Subgroup | Language | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Nubian | Haraza | *auri-yah* |
| Nubian | Old Nubian | *uwo* |
| Nubian | Karko | *ārè* |
| Nara | | *ari-ga* |
| Nyima | Proto-Nyima | *\*arm-* |
| Taman | Proto-Taman | *\*wari* |
**~~Table 7. Ek lexical isogloss, “two,” *\*wari(m)*[^t7]~~**
[^t7]: Haraza data from Bell, "Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian,” 84; Old Nubian data from Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* 138; Karko data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns"; Nara data from Hayward, “Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara”; Proto-Nyima data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon”; Proto-Taman data from Edgar, “First Steps toward Proto-Tama.”
## The En Languages
Though the En languages share overlapping isoglosses, they do not share enough common material to be conclusively considered a genetic unity. Bender recognizes that the arguments for membership of Temein in his En group are sketchy. **Table 8** presents one of Bender’s better common glosses.
| Subgroup | Language | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Surmic | Murle | ***ɓɔ****lɔ́ɔ́k* |
| E Jebel | Aka | ***bəəb****a* |
| Temein | Temein | ***pɔ̀p****áʈɪ̀ʈ* |
| Daju | Liguri | *ku****ɓu****du* |
| E Nilotic | Lopit | *a*.***bob***.*io* |
| E Nilotic | Maa | *a*.***bob***.*oki* |
**~~Table 8. En lexical isogloss, “bark n.,” *\*-bob-*~~**
# Morphological Evidence
In the light of these problems with the lexicon, it may be that a better case for East Sudanic can be made on the basis of morphology. Bryan had already noted the existence of a “t-k substratum” in a variety of languages across East-Central Africa.[^301] These elements are affixes on nominals associated with number marking. Her argument is somewhat confused, as this feature is unlikely to be a substrate feature of some lost phylum. Most plausibly, it is a feature of Nilo-Saharan which has been borrowed *into* Afroasiatic (since it is definitely not a widespread feature of Afroasiatic). Bryan identifies the following morphological elements:
[^301]: Bryan, “The T–K Languages.”
* Singulative *-t*
* Plural *-k*
* Plural *-N*
The majority of languages she uses to exemplify this principle would now be classified as East Sudanic. Greenberg calls moveable *k-* a “stage III article”[^302] while Ehret calls it both an “adjective suffix” and a “noun particularizing prefix.”[^303] Bender, who considers it a “noun-class formative remnant,”[^304] notes that it is widespread but not universal in Nilo-Saharan. Also included are some Cushitic languages, but the extension of the “substratum” is somewhat strained. The T-affix in Afroasiatic is a widespread marker of feminine gender and a deep level connection with Nilo-Saharan through semantic shift is not impossible. Bender also discusses N-affixes in Nilo-Saharan,[^305] reprising observations by Tucker & Bryan.[^306] Storch also takes up the issue of N/K and T/K alternations in relation to Nilotic noun morphology.[^307]
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 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,* pp. 176, 181.
[^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* p. 75.
[^305]: Ibid.
[^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
## Nubian and Meroitic
Nubian demonstrates strong evidence for tripartite number marking in nouns. Jakobi & Hamdan describe Karko, which has a restricted system of suffixed singulatives, where *-Vt* and *-ɖ* are allomorphs (**Table 9**).
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| sorghum | *wèê-t* | *wèè* |
| hair | *ʈēɽ-ét* | *tèèl* |
| bulrush millet | *ɛ̀nɖ-ɛ́t* | *ɛ̀nɖ* |
| tooth | *jíl-ɖ* | *jīīl* |
| breast | *ə̄l-ɖ* | *ɔ̄ɔ̄l* |
**~~Table 9. Karko singulatives[^401]~~**
[^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.
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| body | *íìl* | *īl-ɖ* |
| heart | *áàl* | *āl-ɖ* |
| star | *ōnɖ* | *ōnɖ-ôl* |
| milk | *éèj* | *ēj-ēl* |
| chicken | *kòk* | *kōk-ôr* |
| cat | *bùt* | *bùt-ùr* |
| | | |
| blood | *ōg* | *ōg-ōnd* |
| fire | *úk* | *ūk-ūnd* |
| | | |
| river | *ìr* | *īr-īɲ* |
| rope | *ə̀r* | *ə̄r-ə̄ɲ* |
| shield | *kə̀r* | *kə̀r-ə̀ŋ* |
| ostrich | *ʈùlɖ* | *ʈùlɖ-ùŋ* |
**~~Table 10. Karko plural marking[^401a]~~**
[^401a]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns.”
Proto-Nubian may have had a fully functional tripartite system, which has now eroded leaving both singulatives and plurals, but not simultaneously. Once allomorphy is taken into account, the available affixes are very restricted. A language such as Midob has a still more reduced system, with only the alveo-dental *t ~ di* (**Table 11**).
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| thing | *sáar* | *sàartì* |
| house | *ə̀d* | *ə̀ttì* |
| child | *úccí* | *ùccédí* |
| woman | *íddí* | *ìddédí* |
| cow | *tə̀ə* | *tə̀yítì* |
**~~Table 11. Midob nominal plurals[^402]~~**
[^402]: Data from Werner, *Tìdn-áal*.
The restricted corpus for Meroitic and the absence of reliable grammatical information makes it problematic to know the nature of its affix system. However, a couple of glosses which are considered reliable almost certainly show singulatives comparable to other Nubian languages:
| Gloss | Transliteration | Approx. pronunciation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| sister | *kdise, kdite* | /kaɖiɕ, kaɖit/ |
| life | *pwrite* | /bawarit/ |
**~~Table 12. Meroitic glosses showing singulative marking[^403]~~**
[^403]: Data from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*
## Nara
Nominal plurals in Nara are created through suffixing and sporadic gemination of the final consonant. The six plural classes are shown in **Table 13**. There are weak correlations with semantics and these are given only as indicative:
| Suffix | | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) | Semantics |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *-ka* | -K | fox | *kerfe* | *kerefka* | animals |
| | | animal | *oof* | *oofka* | |
| *-ta* | -T | heart | *asma* | *asimta* | body parts|
| | | meat | *nooti* | *noota* | |
| *-a* | -V | ear | *tus* | *tusa* | animals and plants |
| | | thorn | *keer* | *keera* | |
| *-tta* | -T | blood | *kito* | *kitotta* | collectives(?) |
| | | grass | *sum* | *sumitta* | |
| *-CCa* | -I | bride | *solobi* | *solobba* | people, animals |
| | | goat | *bele* | *bella* | |
| *-ʤʤa* | -S | gland | *foʤi* | *foʤʤaa* | internal secretions |
| | | milk course | *ngiʤi* | *ngiʤʤaa* | |
**~~Table 13. Nara number marking in nouns[^404]~~**
The plurals in last three classes which involve consonant doubling and change the final vowel to *-a* may simply be allomorphs of an underlying *-a* suffix. These may derive from a single rule and thus not exemplify the characteristic East Sudanic suffixes.
[^404]: Data from Dawd & Hayward, "Nara.”
## Nyima
Nyima covers two related languages, Nyimang and Afitti, now usually known as Ama and Dinik respectively. Both languages have retained only traces of the complex noun morphology characteristic of other East Sudanic branches. Ama nouns have a single plural-marking suffix, *-ŋi* (or *-gi* after a liquid). Even this is dropped when number can be inferred from either a numeral or a quantifier. There are a small number of suppletives for persons:
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| person, [pl]({sc}) people | *wodáŋ* | *wàá* |
| child | *wodéŋ* | *ɖúriŋ* |
**~~Table 14. Suppletive plural forms in Ama~~**
Reduplication can be used to express collectives, e.g., *ɖàmì* "egg"; *ɖàɖàmì* "all the eggs.”
Otherwise the loss of most plural marking is very marked in comparison with related branches. For Dinik, De Voogt notes number marking briefly, which he states is only applied consistently to animates. Dinik has three plural markers, *-gòr, -ná,* and *-é.*[^999] A comparison of the lexicon of Dinik yields some possible evidence for fossil affixes. Dinik in particular has a wide range of nominals with *-Vk* suffixes (**Table 14**).
[^999]: De Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.”
| Gloss | Attestation |
| :--- | :--- |
| river | *kwɔlək* |
| dura sorghum | *mənək* |
| scorpion | *ŋwunək* |
| grave | *tirik* |
| lightning | *arsək* |
| salt | *ɔrdik* |
| spear | *mətsək* |
**~~Table 15. The fossil affix _-Vk_ in Dinik[^405]~~**
[^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 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"; ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md).
| Gloss | Factative | Progressive |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| build | *t̪-ùɡ-è* | *k-ūɡ* |
| dig | *t̪-īw-ò* | *k-íw* |
| light (fire) | *t̪-ūɕ-ē* | *k-úɕ-ín* |
| build | *tuɡɛ̀* | *kwò* |
| chop | *tàiɔ̀* | *kaì* |
| dig | *tìwò* | *kìù* |
**~~Table 16. T/K marking on Ama verb stems[^t16]~~**
[^t16]: Data from ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md)
Norton has a lengthy argument about how the nominal alternation became attached to verbs, which he summarises as follows:
> 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) […]. 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 singulactional/pluractional alternations.[^998]
[^998]: ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md)
This shift from the nominal to the verbal system suggests that Nyima need no longer be treated as the missing piece in the puzzle of East Sudanic morphology.
## Taman
Descriptions of the morphology of Taman languages are very limited. Kellermann provides a summary of number marking in nouns, based on the manuscript material of Stevenson (**Table 17**):
| Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) | Gloss |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *-t* | *mèya-t* | *-k* | *mèya-k* | blacksmith |
| *-t* | *wɪ̀gɪ-t* | *-ɛ* | *wɪ̀gɪ-ɛ* | bird |
| *-V* | *áunyò* | *-(V)k* | *áunyò-k* | elbow |
| -∅ | *gaan* | *-(V)k* | *gaan-ɪk* | tree |
| -∅ | *wal* | *-V* | *wal-u* | house |
| *-k* | *taɽ-ak* | *-V* | *taɽ-o* | chief |
| *-X* | *iɲ-o* | *-(V)ɲ* | *iɲ-iɲ* | pot |
| -∅ | *áwór* | *-(V)ŋ* | *áwór-oŋ* | knee |
**~~Table 17. Tama nominal number-marking[^407]~~**
[^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 formerly operative. The underspecified *V* in *-VC* suffixes suggests compounding, as in other East Sudanic languages.
## Surmic
Surmic displays abundant evidence for three-term number marking. **Table 18** shows its operation in Laarim:
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | Generic | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| gazelle | *boronit* | *boron-* | *boronua* |
| nail | *gurmaloʧ* | *gurmal-* | *gurmaleeta* |
**~~Table 18. Tripartite number marking in Laarim[^t18]~~**
[^t18]: Data from Joseph et al., *Laarim Grammar Book.*
Yigezu & Dimmendaal focus on Baale and **Table 19** shows its number marking system and identifiable affixes. The variability in Baale is extremely high with many minor differences, so the analysis is not always certain. For example, "stomach” might represent an original *-NV* affix, eroded by the subsequent addition of the *-TV.*
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| arm, hand | -∅ | *ayí* | *-NV* | *ayinná* |
| moon | -∅ | *ɲʊlʊ́* | *-KV* | *ɲɔlɔgɛ́* |
| man, person | -∅ | *éé* | *-TV* | *eet̤á* |
| goat | -∅ | *ɛ́ɛ́s* | *-TV* | *ɛ́ɛ́ta* |
| head | *-A* | *ɔwá* | *-TV* | *ooti* |
| face, forehead | *-A* | *ŋʊmmá* | *-TV* | *ŋuundí* |
| stomach | *-A* | *kɛŋŋá* | *-TV* | *keendi* |
| ear | *-NV* | *ɪtááni* | *-NV* | *ɪnná* |
| rope | *-S* | *mɔssájí* | *-N* | *mɔɔssɛ́n* |
**~~Table 19. Baale number marking and affixes[^t19]~~**
[^t19]: Data from Yigezu & Dimmendaal, “Notes on Baale.”
From this evidence, Baale has singulars in *-(N)A,* *-S,* and *-NV* and plurals with *-KV, -TV,* and *-N.*
## Eastern Jebel
To judge by the data in Bender,[^410] Aka has a richer system of number marking than Gaahmg. Extracting the affixes from the system of number-marking, the following (at least) occur (**Table 20**):
[^410]: Bender, “The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan I”; Bender, "The Eastern Jebel Languages of Sudan II.”
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| tongue | -∅ | *kala* | *-A, -T* | *kala.ati* |
| knee | -∅ | *kʊsu* | *-N* | *kʊsuu.ŋi* |
| belly | -∅ | *ɛllɛ* | *-T* | *ɛllɛ.ti* |
| ear | -∅ | *sigii* | *-T* | *sigii.de* |
| fish | -∅ | *ʔʊʊgu* | *-T* | *ʔʊʊgu.ði* |
| dog | -∅ | *kɛle* | *-V* | *kɛle.i* |
| bone | *-K* | *gamoo.ka* | *-N* | *gamoo.ɲi* |
| egg | *-K* | *ʔʊmuu.ke* | *-T* | *ʊʊmʊ.ti* |
| horn | *-K* | *kɔsʊl.ge* | *-V* | *kɔsʊʊl.i* |
| cloud | *-V* | *aabuga* | *-T* | *aabug.adi* |
**~~Table 20. Examples of Aka number marking on nouns[^t20]~~**
[^t20]: Data from Bender, “Proto-Koman Phonology and Lexicon.”
As with Gaamhg, nouns can have zero marking, singulatives a velar or underspecified vowel, with plural affixes *-Ti, -Ni,* or a single vowel. Some plural suffixes, such as *-aTi,* probably combine two affixes, a pattern found elsewhere in East Sudanic.
## Temein
Temein consists of three languages, Temein, Keiga Jirru, and These.[^412] Surface forms for number marking in Temein are highly diverse and not easy to predict, even though the basic elements are relatively few. Temein languages operate a three-way system of number-marking with an unmarked form plus singulatives and pluratives, also known as “replacive.”[^413] However, the erosion of this system has meant that nouns where three terms occur synchronically are relatively rare. **Table 21** shows some examples of these:
[^412]: Blench, “Introduction to the Temein Languages.”
[^413]: See, e.g., Dimmendaal, “Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages,” or Blench, “Introduction to the Temein Languages.”
Language | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | Unmarked | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
Temein | dura | *mórɪŋɪnʈɛʈ* (one grain) | *mórɪŋɪs* (head of grain) | *mórɪŋ* (dura plant) |
Keiga Jirru | meat | *bɪlanḑàk* (one piece) | *ɪnɖàk* | *kɪnɖaɖɪ̀k* |
Keiga Jirru | medicine | *móreḑàk* | | *komórò* (roots) |
These | fat (n.) | *nányɛ́ɖə̀k* | *nányàʔ* | *kɪnányàʔ* |
**~~Table 21. Tripartite number marking in the Temein cluster~~**
Number marking in Temein displays typical Nilo-Saharan characteristics, although these are combined in ways that are difficult to predict for individual nouns. The most common elements are:
* “Moveable k-” (with an underspecified vowel), prefixed, suffixed or both, where prefixed *kV-* is a typical strategy for Arabic loanwords
* Addition of final *–NI*
* Addition of final *–a[ʔ]*
* Singulative marking with *–Iʈ,* *-Is*
* Vowel lengthening and unpredictable changes in vowel quality
* Changes in ATR quality of the vowel
* Suppletion is present although not always easy to identify due to vowel changes and shortening
### Prefix *k-*
In the Temein cluster *k-* is strongly associated with plurals and can occur before, after, and at both ends of a word. The underspecified vowel often results in a copy of the stem vowel, though not in every case. The vowel can disappear when the stem begins with an approximant. *Table 22* shows surface forms in Temein:
| Gloss | Unmarked | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| belly | *óòm* | *kómɪk* |
| big | *ḿbù* | *kɪmbɪk* |
| hill, stone | *kúrɛʈ* | *kukúrɛʈ* |
| shield | *wór* | *kwòráʔ* |
**~~Table 22. Temein *-Vk, kV-* nominal affixes~~**
This affix has an allomorph *–Vk* that can mark singulative as in These (**Table 23**):
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | Unmarked |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| firewood | *márɛnyɪk* | *márɛŋ* |
| ear | *ŋwánɪk* | *kwɛɛŋ* |
| eye | *náánɪk* | *kɛnyɪŋ* |
| fish | *kɛlɛɖak* | *káála* |
**~~Table 23. These *-Vk* singulative affix~~**
In the case of the singulative for “fish,” it appears that it has already been marked once as a singulative with *–ʈ* and the *–Vk* has been subsequently affixed.
### Final *–NI*
Less common is *–NI* or *-IN* in final position. Temein examples are shown in **Table 24**:
| Gloss | Unmarked | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| friend | *wórɪnyà* | *kórɪnyànɪ̀* |
| hanging frame | *sɛsɪlàŋ* | *sɛsɪlàŋì* |
| moon | *kóù* | *kikówɪn* |
**~~Table 24. Temein -IN, -NI plural affix~~**
The following affixes can thus be attributed to Temein, *-T, -K, -N, -S, -V.* Temein shows no evidence for consonant gemination.
## Daju
Daju languages also show evidence for the characteristic three-way number-marking contrast of Nilo-Saharan, albeit realised in a fragmentary way in many languages. Stevenson describes the three-way contrast in Shatt Tebeldia:
> Many nouns have three forms, representing mass or collective / unit / units. [...] The suffix is then replaced by another, or a further suffix is added, to denote the plural of the unit. [...][^414]
[^414]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 96.
This is shown for two glosses in **Table 25**:
| Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | Unmarked | [pl]({sc}) (countable) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| egg | *gilis-ic* | *gilis* | *gilis-u* |
| worm | *ox-uic* | *ox* | *ox-uij-iny* |
Shatt and Laggori at least have considerable diversity of surface affixes marking number, either singulative or plural with suffixes as well as *replacing word endings.[^415] Boyeldieu describes the number marking in Shatt Damman in some detail (**Table 26**).
[^415]: Boyeldieu, *La qualification dans les langues africaines*; Alamin Mubarak, “An Initial Description of Laggori Noun Morphology and Noun Phrase.”
| Category | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| [sg]({sc})/pl. alternation | *-V* | *-u* |
| | *-x* | *-ɲ* |
| | *-c* | *-ɲ, -ic/-iɲ, -d(d)ic/-d(d)iɲ* |
| | *-ic* | *-u* |
| | *-(ɨ)c* | *-ta/-d(d)a* |
| [pl]({sc}) only | | *-iɲ* |
| | | *-u* |
| | | *-ta/-d(d)a* |
| | | *-ti/-d(d)i* |
| | | *-tiɲ* |
| | | *-dɨk* |
| [sg]({sc}) only | *-ic* | |
| | *-tic/-d(d)ic* | |
| | *-c* | |
| | *-sɨnic/-zɨnɨc* | |
**~~Table 26. Number-marking suffixes in Shatt Damman[^t26]~~**
[^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.
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* |
| 2 | liver | *cacaw-ce* |
| 3 | mouth | *uk-e* |
| 4 | car | *watiɾ-i* |
**~~Table 27. Singulative suffixes in Dar Daju[^t27]~~**
[^t27]: Data from Aviles, *The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.*
The singulative suffixes *-NV, -ʧV,* and *-V* (where *V* is a front vowel) can be attributed to Dar Daju.
## Nilotic
### West Nilotic
The principal overview of noun morphology in West Nilotic is presented by Storch. Western Nilotic also has an emergent classifier system, described in some detail in Storch but omitted here. **Table 28** summarizes the affixes of West Nilotic:
| Semantics | Mayak | Mabaan | Jumjum | Dinka | Nuer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| general | *-(V)k* | *-k(ʌ̃)* | *-kV* | *-k, -V* | |
| general | *-(V)n* | *-Cin̪* | *-ni* | *-N, -V* | *-ní, -V̪* |
| round, mass, small | | *-ǎn̪* | | | |
| body | | *-kù* | | | *-c* |
| space| | | | | (*\*-N*?) |
| unspecified | | *-λ* | | | *-y* |
| unspecified | *-it̪* | *-t̪ǎn* | | *-t̪* | *-t̪* |
| abstract | -ḓín | | | | |
| Semantics | Anywa | Päri | Shilluk | Lüwo | Thuri |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| general | *-k, -Ci, Cè* | *-ki, -ke* | *\*-k* | *-kʌ̀* | *-k* |
| general | *-Ci*?, *-Cè*? | *-Neʔ* | *-V(N)* | *-V, -ɛ, -NVɛ́* | *-Ni, -in, -Nɛ́, -ɛ́n* |
| round, mass, small | *-i* | *-e* | (.ˋ), (ʾ) | *-ɛ́* | *-ɛ́* |
| body | *-Ci* | *-ì* | | *-ì* | *-ì* |
| space | | | | | |
| unspecified | | | [.ˋ] | |
| unspecified | *-t, -Cè* | *-rí, -te* | *-Vdi* | *-t̪* | *-d̪i* |
| abstract | | | | | |
| Semantics | Belanda Bor | S. Lwoo | Labwor |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| general | | *-k(V), -ke* | *-gV* |
| general | | *-ni, -n(í)n, -ne* | *-ni, -né* |
| round, mass, small | | *-e* | *-é, -i* |
| body | | *-i* | *-i* |
| space| | | |
| unspecified | | | |
| unspecified | | *\*-ti, -(t)àʔ* | *-(C)áʔ* |
| abstract| | | |
**~~Table 28. Number marking affixes in West Nilotic[^418]~~**
If we presume the same processes of allomorphy as elsewhere in East Sudanic, the number marking affixes of Proto-West Nilotic can be summarized more briefly:
* Underlying affixes: *-KV, -TV, -NV, -V*
* Compound affixes: *-TVN, -VTV, -VNV*
[^418]: Data from Storch, *The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic,* 385.
### East Nilotic
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.*
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| cattle tick | *-T(T)* | *mɨ́sɨ́r.ɨtɨ́t* | -∅ | *másɛ̂r* |
| black ant | *-T* | *múkúɲ.êt* | -∅ | *múkûn* |
| Bari | *-N + -T* | *bari.nɪ́t* | -∅ | *barɪ* |
| hippo | -∅ | *yárɔ́* | *-S + -N* | *yárɔ́.Ɉɪn* |
| school | -∅ | *sukúlu* | *-K* | *sukúlu.kíʔ* |
| nose | -∅ | *kʊmɛ́* | *-S* | *kʊmɛ́.sɪʔ* |
| cheek | -∅ | *ŋɛ́bɪ́* | *-T* | *ŋɛ́bɪ́.at* |
| speck | -∅ | *bɛ́rɛt* | *-N* | *bɛ́rɛt.án* |
| hedgehog | -∅ | *leɲɨpúɗut* | *-T + -M* | *leɲɨpúɗu(t)lɨ́n*|
| knife | -∅ | *wálɪ́* | *-V* | *wálɪ́.a* |
**~~Table 29. Kuku singulatives and plural markers[^420]~~**
[^420]: Data from Cohen, *Aspects of the Grammar of Kukú.*
The underlying logic of the singulatives is evident; nouns that are considered inherently plural are unmarked, with individuals marked by suffix. Thus “Bari” is a nation and the singulative applies to a Bari person. The suffixes are all allomorphs of a basic *-VT* form, except for the additional nasal, which is either a person marker or the nasal also occurring in the plural. Plural suffixes can be reduced to a dental, a velar, a nasal and an underspecified vowel. The only unusual feature is the *-sɪʔ* suffix, which may be innovative.
### South Nilotic
There are two published reconstructions of South Nilotic.[^421] Rottland includes a substantial comparative wordlist as well as discussions of number marking. Tucker & Bryan discuss number marking with respect to Pokot and Nandi-Kipsigis. Based on their illustration of Pokot, **Table 30** extracts a sample of singular/plural pairings in Pokot, which illustrate singulatives in *-V(V)N* and *-tV* and plural in *-kV.* *-V(V)* suffixes are also common, but it is unclear how many are allomorphs and how many are distinct roots.
[^421]: Ehret, *Southern Nilotic History*; Rottland, *Die südnilotischen Sprachen.*
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| the calf | *-Tv* | *mɔ̀ɔ̀ɣ.tâ* | *-V* | *mòóɣ.eeʔ* |
| the duiker | *-Tv* | *cèptǐrkìc.tä́* | *-kV* | *cèptǐrkìc.kä̂*|
| the flea | *-VN + -Tv* | *kə̀mə̀tyàán.tɛ́ɛ́* | *-kV* | *kəmə́t.kä̂*|
| the spear | *-Tv* | *ŋɔ̀t.ə́t* | *-V, -V(V)* | *ŋät.w.éè* |
| the lover | *-VN + -Tv* | *cä̀míín.téè* | *-V* | *cä̀m.í |
| the barred door | *-V* | *mä̀rä̀n.èéʔ* | *-kV* | *mä̀rä̂n.kä̂*|
**~~Table 30. Examples of Pokot number marking[^422]~~**
[^422]: Data from Tucker & Bryan, *Noun Classification in Kalenjin: Päkot*; Tucker & Bryan, *Noun Classification in Kalenjin: Nandi-Kipsigis.*
Pokot shows evidence for an original singulative *-V(V)N,* which has been resuffixed with *-tV(V).*
The number system of Endo, another language of the Markweeta (Marakwet) group, is described by Zwarts. Endo has a wide range of singulative suffixes shown in **Table 31**, although once allomorphy is considered, they can probably be reduced to a rather simpler set. Zwarts argues that plurals constitute the unmarked set.
| Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| cloud | *-tV* | *pool.ta* | *pool* |
| woman | *-ka* | *kāār.kā* | *kāār* |
| grasshopper | *-wa* | *taalim.wa* | *taalim* |
| cedar | *-wa* | *tārāāk.wā* | *taraak* |
| patch of grass | *-wa + -Vn* | *sīūs.wāān* | *sūūs* |
| medicine | *-wa + -Vn* | *saakit.yaan* | *saakit* |
| European | *-Vn* | *chūmp.īīn* | *chumpa* |
| shoe | *-V* | *kwēēr.ā* | *kwēēr* |
**~~Table 31. Endo singulative suffixes[^t30]~~**
[^t30]: Data adapted from Zwarts, “Number in Endo-Marakwet.”
Underlyingly, therefore. Endo has the singulatives *-V(V)N, -tV, -V, -kV,* and an unmarked plural. Despite the surface differences, the West Nilotic system in these two examples is broadly similar.
## Synthesis
A feature of East Sudanic, and indeed Nilo-Saharan more generally, is extensive allomorphy. Each affix appears under several guises, often reflecting the stem to which is suffixed. **Table 32** shows the typical allomorphs of East Sudanic nominal affixes:
| Affix | Interpretation | Typical allomorphs |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| -T | dentals | /t/, /ʈ/, /d/, /ɖ/ |
| -K | velars | /k/, /g/ |
| -N | nasals | /n/, /ŋ/, /ɲ/ |
| -S | fricatives | /s/, /ʃ/, /ʤ/ |
| -V | non-central vowels | /i/, /u/ |
| -A | central vowels | /a/ |
**~~Table 32: Allomorphs of East Sudanic nominal affixes~~**
**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 | Aff. st. | Gem. | Ref. |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Nubian | + | – | + | – | – | + | – | T. 9, 10 |
| Nara | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | T. 13 |
| Nyima | – | ? | – | – | – | – | – | T. 15, 16 |
| Taman | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | T. 17 |
| Surmic | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | T. 19 |
| E Jebel | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | T. 20 |
| Temein | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | T. 22, 23, 24 |
| Daju | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | T. 26, 27 |
| W Nilotic | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | T. 28 |
| E Nilotic | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | T. 29 |
| S Nilotic | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | T. 30, 31 |
**~~Table 33. East Sudanic nominal affixes and associated~~**
The resultant pattern is not perfect but still indicative for the structure of East Sudanic. The number-marking suffixes form complete sets in En languages, with *-S* attested only in Nara. This implies that all five affixes were present in proto-East Sudanic but were preferentially lost in the Ek languages. Affix-stacking, though present in Nubian, is otherwise absent in Ek languages but is likely to be a retention from proto-East Sudanic. Gemination is too sparsely distributed to draw any conclusions, but is plausibly an independent development of no classificatory significance.
# Internal Structure of East Sudanic
The evidence presented points to a common inheritance in East Sudanic number marking strategies. The distribution of affix-stacking and complete affix sets suggest that apart from common lexemes, Ek languages are characterized by a common loss of these characters. In the light of this, **Figure 1** presents a revised internal classification of East Sudanic, grouping together the Ek languages as Northern East Sudanic, but leaving the others as independent branches.
![Proposed internal structure of East Sudanic](../static/images/classification2.png "Proposed internal structure of East Sudanic")
**~~Figure 1. Proposed internal structure of East Sudanic[^fig1]~~**
[^fig1]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* 208.
It seems plausible that further results should be attainable from a deeper examination of the lexicon, since the effect of affix accretion and reanalysis obscures cognacy of roots.
# East Sudanic within Nilo-Saharan
The attentive reader will have observed that many of the affixes identified in this paper have been attested outside the proposed East Sudanic. Indeed, the “t-k substratum” proposed by Tucker & Bryan is far more widespread. Particular candidates are Kuliak and Kadu, a subgroup sometimes excluded from Nilo-Saharan altogether. This section considers briefly the morphology of these two groups in relation to our understanding of East Sudanic.
I have explored this morphology in the Kadu languages while Gilley has looked into number-marking in Katcha in some detail.[^601] Typically, Kadu languages have a three-term system with a singulative in *-t* and plural in *-k* and *-N.* They also have case-marking, which is only sporadically attested in East Sudanic languages and cannot be reconstructed, as well as sex-gender, which is entirely absent. This suggests that the *-T, -K,* and *-N* affixes can be reconstructed further back in Nilo-Saharan, but the *-V* and *-S* are distinctive to East Sudanic. The gemination found in Nara and East Nilotic is not recorded in Kadu, but may not be reconstructible to proto-East Sudanic.
[^601]: Blench, "The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation"; Gilley, "Katcha Noun Morphology.”
The Kuliak languages, a small group in northeast Uganda which includes Ik, So, and Nyangi, were originally included by Greenberg within East Sudanic, but have long been treated as an independent branch of Nilo-Saharan. However, their lexicon has been heavily impacted both by their immediate neighbors, the Karimojong, but also by Southern Nilotic in some past era. Moreover, Lamberti has noted striking resemblances to the East Cushitic languages.[^602] Heine presents an overview and reconstruction of Kuliak as it was known at the period.[^603] More recently, Carlin and Schrock have provided extensive documentation of Soo and Ik (Icétôd).[^604] Kuliak languages have three-term number marking, with singulative in *-T* and plurative in *-K, -N,* as well as allowing affix-stacking, but also have a striking nominal case-marking system not present in East Sudanic. There is no evidence for gemination.
[^602]: Lamberti, *Kuliak and Cushitic.*
[^603]: Heine, *The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.*
[^604]: Carlin, *The So language*; Schrock, *The Ik Language.*
In conclusion, East Sudanic is characterized by a series of affixes, which have developed out of a smaller set which are also present in related branches of Nilo-Saharan. Unlike Kadu, there is no trace of gender and the case marking. Case marking is also characteristic of Kuliak languages, which only have a reduced affix set. These suggest that there is a higher node within Nilo-Saharan which included these three branches, but that the East Sudanic language developed specific morphological features (or perhaps lost them at the level of the proto-language). It is striking that the lexical unity of East Sudanic is not more apparent, given the conservatism of the number-marking system.
# Abbreviations
* A: any central vowel ±ATR;
* C: any consonant;
* I: any high front vowel ±ATR;
* K: velar consonant;
* N: any nasal consonant;
* [pl]({sc}): plural;
* S: any fricative consonant;
* [sg]({sc}): singular;
* T: any dental consonant;
* V: any vowel;
* X: any phoneme.
# Bibliography
Alamin Mubarak, Suzan. ![“An Initial Description of Laggori Noun Morphology and Noun Phrase.”](bib:3d73bfd8-ecfb-49ae-a308-87fe4f3c0a4c) 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. *![The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.](bib:172777d2-1244-4685-b9b5-f95aa1f4eba2)* MA Thesis, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks, 2008.
Bell, Herman. ![“Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian.”](bib:35fa2069-2d2e-4fa7-bc37-e9f348e52f9f) *Sudan Notes and Records* 7 (1975): pp. 1–36.
Bender, M. Lionel. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Carbondale: SIU, 2003.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 45 (1996): pp. 139–150.
Bender, M. Lionel. ![“Proto-Koman Phonology and Lexicon.”](bib:91506945-6f0c-4a06-9e3d-cb44fc083b13) *Africa and Ubersee* 66, no. 2 (1983): pp. 259–297.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 63 (2000): pp. 103–120.
Bender, M. Lionel. ![“The Genetic Position of Nilotic i: Independent Pronouns.”](bib:74fa0a86-2e19-4561-96ba-222215b726f8) 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, M. Lionel. ![“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan I: Phonology.”](bib:75a67645-6d4e-4030-a169-4f482353bc9c) *Afrika und Übersee* 80 (1997): pp. 189–215.
Bender, M. Lionel. ![“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan II: Comparative Lexicon.”](bib:48f2cb6c-9e1f-4086-bd30-e09459282990) *Afrika und Übersee* 81 (1998): pp. 39–64.
Bender, M. Lionel. *![The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.](bib:451c9cbd-baec-4d48-a568-aee6736ae290)* Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005.
Bender, Lionel M. *![The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay.](bib:5a643e00-aee9-4d2b-a2a0-dfb75ac0ee9d)* 2nd edition. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997.
Blench, Roger M. ![“Introduction to the Temein Languages.”](bib:3154908d-c189-4f67-a261-ec7a33ab1aa0) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg and Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 485–500.
Blench, Roger M. ![“The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation: Between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic.”](bib:a323dd31-db45-4861-95b2-f84173e7d9a0) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 101–127.
Boyeldieu, Pascal. ![“Dadjo-Sila.”](bib:50cf9d31-12ca-4288-be3d-34f9fdb03d31) In *La qualification dans les langues africaines,* edited by Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler, and Kerstin Winkelmann. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2008: pp. 57–70.
Browne, Gerald M. *![Old Nubian Dictionary.](bib:8847cd9f-19d3-4c25-9c43-9377779bc83e)* Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
Bryan, Margaret. ![“The T–K Languages: A New Substratum.”](bib:59783b11-e5ab-4942-a480-05cafb1ed192) *Africa* 29, no. 1 (1959): pp. 1–21. [doi]({sc}): [10.2307/1157496](https://doi.org/10.2307/1157496).
Carlin, Eithne. *![The So language.](bib:2ec0a751-705a-484b-aad4-5162c65a0f1b)* Cologne: Universität zu Köln, 1993.
Cohen, Kevin B. *![Aspects of the Grammar of Kukú.](bib:c811d57b-6a18-4324-8c11-d412229393e5)* Munich: Lincom Europa, 2000.
Dawd, Abushush & R.J. Hayward. ![“Nara.”](bib:8b9b7993-cbf5-45fc-afb9-b20680b11de1) *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* 32, no. 2 (2002): pp. 249–255. [doi]({sc}): [10.1017/S0025100302001068](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100302001068).
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan.”](bib:bc7bbd20-98eb-4b61-908c-77535e7c22ce) *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 31 (2011): pp. 13–46. [doi]({sc}): [10.1515/jall.2010.003](https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.2010.003).
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. *![Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages.](bib:1b14c433-6694-4e94-bb31-9f2dda8dbd43)* Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2011.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin.” *Afrikanistik Online* 11, no. 3 (2014): pp. 1–23. https://www.afrikanistik-aegyptologie-online.de/archiv/2014/3859/fulltext/view?set_language=en.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages.”](bib:3e699b03-56a6-4110-bc38-b860035d5021) *Anthropological Linguistics* 42, no. 2 (2000): pp. 214–261.
Edgar, John T. ![“First Steps toward Proto-Tama.”](bib:91b8fc03-b558-4119-b172-dd118437e721) 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. *![A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan.](bib:cf0fc6eb-0e34-4dee-8902-c553e8aaa0ee)* Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001.
Ehret, Christopher. *![Southern Nilotic History: Linguistic Approaches to the Study of the Past.](bib:dbe71a96-b51d-461d-bbe3-20e233179b1d)* Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971.
Gilley, Leoma G. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:3ea12960-5689-4e29-8189-d13a5c10692c) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522.
Greenberg, Joseph H. ![“Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article (with a Penutian Typological Parallel).”](bib:87038f04-8e56-4bbb-aa10-c8c1fa4a1d45) *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 3, no. 2 (1981): pp. 105–112. [10.1515/jall.1981.3.2.105](https://doi.org/10.1515/jall.1981.3.2.105).
Greenberg, Joseph H. ![“Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.”](bib:5dcdd5d6-51d2-4f4a-814c-219fda36d2c1) *Southwestern Journal of Anthropology* 6, no. 2 (1950): pp. 143–160. [10.1086/soutjanth.6.2.3628639](https://doi.org/110.1086/soutjanth.6.2.3628639).
Greenberg, Joseph H. *![The Languages of Africa.](bib:a107ca3b-6b11-49b2-bed3-9b246c811eec)* 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. ![“Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara.”](bib:5845de37-b202-415c-8c1c-49f1f572ecdf) 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. *![The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.](bib:63f0b8ef-7146-471d-8da5-ea6d072ca050)* Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1976.
Jakobi, Angelika & Ahmed Hamdan. ![“Number Marking on Karko Nouns.”](bib:c4537a23-8be5-469c-bbac-30b2af9d08c4) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 271–289. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D62110017](https://doi.org/10.5070/D62110017).
Joseph, Clement Lopeyok, et al. *![Laarim Grammar Book.](bib:eda1866f-6149-4c1c-bd8d-a7de18917529)* Juba: SIL-Sudan, 2012.
Kellermann, P. *![Eine grammatische Skizze des Tama auf der Basis der Daten von R.C. Stevenson.](bib:1a8fb75e-1e5e-4dac-9519-23486057cf21)* MA thesis, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universitat, Mainz, 2000.
Lamberti, Marcello. *![Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study.](bib:a70d79be-c1a6-4e05-92c5-da78559fcab0)* Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1988.
Norton, Russell. "Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): ![this issue](article:norton.md)
Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:53a9eb31-bc2f-453e-a07a-6995c48191ff) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–94.
Rilly, Claude. *![Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.](bib:c191b60d-ae64-4eee-9c72-e71b7ae987b5)* Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
Rilly, Claude & Alex de Voogt. *![The Meroitic Language and Writing System.](bib:78adbdef-4040-47d2-8229-7bc24c874b23)* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Ross, James S. *A Preliminary Attempt at the Reconstruction of Proto-East Sudanic Phonology and Lexicon.* MA Thesis, Southern Illinois University, 1990.
Rottland, Franz. *![Die südnilotischen Sprachen: Beschriebung, Vergleichung und Rekonstruktion.](bib:3181d790-c83d-4270-91c1-92bb8e4011c0)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982.
Schrock, Terrill B. *![The Ik Language: Dictionary and Grammar Sketch.](bib:4973b589-b803-4217-9508-bd073f72343f)* Berlin: Language Science Press, 2016.
Starostin, George. ![“Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I: On the Genetic Unity of Nubian-Nara-Tama.”](bib:5b3bd9de-5d28-4d85-aa4e-03036d6ed18b) *Journal of Language Relationship* [*Вопросы языкового родства*] 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113.
Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:36cfcac0-c85c-4be3-88e8-ffcb13cb3659) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:b27f061e-960a-46d5-b5a6-474f11229b79) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
Stirtz, Timothy M. *![A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan.](bib:96c81a2c-85e4-4912-9ff3-e92dafc3385e)* Utrecht: LOT, 2011.
Storch, Anne. *![The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic.](bib:874a92f1-7933-4fc8-97ee-90868275447f)* Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2005.
Thelwall, Robin A. ![“A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.”](bib:c0a34308-1929-42cd-b792-1a1890f14564) 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.
Tucker, Archibald N. *![The Eastern Sudanic Languages, Vol. I.](bib:d4636994-3d9f-427c-ba69-163feacdef4c)* Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. *![Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.](bib:5032a302-e980-4166-98ba-d0e9e3e03218)* London: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. *Noun Classification in Kalenjin: Nandi-Kipsigis.* London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1964.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. *Noun Classification in Kalenjin: Päkot.* London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1962.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. *![The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.](bib:629e3c55-e888-48c8-901a-d9e7cb72be0f)* London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Voogt, Alex de ![“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.”](bib:afaccfe5-e788-452d-924c-2cc6d279bc19) *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).
Voßen, Rainer. *![The Eastern Nilotes: Linguistic and Historical Reconstructions.](bib:09dc7cd8-9435-440a-9c10-721d09bb7352)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982.
Werner, Roland. *![Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).](bib:a834aff7-cd58-4268-b1cb-2fcc3f48e6e2)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
Yigezu, Moges & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. ![“Notes on Baale.”](bib:cdf809c4-bd24-4f18-a4bf-a9fc2dfe7c6f) In *Surmic Languages and Cultures,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273–317.
Zwarts, Joost. ![“Number in Endo-Marakwet.”](bib:105ec6b6-fc83-4ae3-aea5-24c167befcda) 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.

705
content/article/honegger.md
View file

@ -1,705 +0,0 @@
---
title: "The Archers of Kerma: Warrior Image and Birth of a State"
authors: ["matthieuhonegger.md"]
abstract: "A research programme conducted by the Swiss archaeological mission in
the oldest sectors of the Eastern Cemetery of Kerma has uncovered
several dozen archers' tombs. The appearance of these armed warriors
dating from ca. 2300 BC onwards can be put in parallel with the
resumption of commercial activities between Egypt and Nubia, illustrated
by the Harkhuf expeditions. The archers and their warrior attributes
probably participate in the emergence of kingship ca. 2000 BC, which
takes control of the commercial axis along the Nile and is illustrated
by the accumulation of wealth and the development of servitude. This
article proposes to describe these Kerma archers, and then to look at
the evolution of funerary rites that show in their own way how a social
hierarchy emerges that will lead to the birth of a state, in this
instance the kingdom of Kerma."
keywords: []
---
# Introduction
It is known that at the time of the Egyptian Kingdom, Nubia represented
a neighbouring and often rival entity, extending from the 1^st^ to the
5^th^ cataract. Its renowned warriors are represented by archers and are
depicted on numerous occasions in the Nile valley, on stelae or engraved
rocks, on bas-reliefs or painted tomb walls. As early as the Old
Kingdom, they were enrolled in the Egyptian armies as mercenaries and
probably formed troops, as shown in the model representing them in the
tomb of Prince Mesheti (11^th^ Dynasty). The territory of Nubia is
itself designated from the beginning of the 3^rd^ millennium by a
hieroglyph in the shape of a bow, *Ta-Sety*, which means the land of the
bow. Despite this evidence of the importance of these warriors and their
weapons, archaeological finds of Nubian archers\' tombs contemporary
with the Egyptian Kingdom are anecdotal. Only a few tombs from the Kerma
period (2550-1480 BC) have been reported by Charles Bonnet in his
excavation reports on the Eastern Cemetery of Kerma.[^1] His most
important discovery consists of an almost intact tomb of an naturally
mummified archer (Fig. 1). Also dating from the *Kerma ancien II* phase
(2300-2150 BC), this grave contained the body of a young man, whose head
had been displaced by grave-robbers.[^2] He was accompanied by arrow
remains and two bows of simple curvature, 120 cm long. One of the bows
was decorated with a plume of ostrich feathers.
The Eastern Cemetery of the Kingdom of Kerma[^3] is known for the
abundance of weapons found in its tombs[^4] as well as for the numerous
traumas present on its skeletonsy.[^5] These observations led to the
view of this society as a warlike aristocracy, where testimonies of
violence were common. These reflections have so far focused on the final
phase of the cemetery and of the Kingdom (1750-1500 BC), best known
thanks to the work of George A. Reisner, undertaken at the beginning of
the 20^th^ century.[^6] Since then, excavations were undertaken between
1979 and 1999 by Charles Bonnet, who investigated 27 sectors spread over
its entire surface (Fig. 2), and between 2008 and 2018, we have
undertaken systematic excavations in sectors of the early stages of the
cemetery (2550-1950 BC), that correspond to the formation of the Kingdom
of Kerma.[^7] They provide previously unpublished information on the
appearance of the first warriors in the form of the famous Nubian
archers, on cases of violence, as well as on the phenomena of servitude,
wealth, and funerary ostentation that was co-eval with the birth of the
kingdom and its domination over a large part of Upper Nubia.
**The Eastern Cemetery of Kerma and its new excavation**
As part of our programme on the evolution of society in Early Kerma, we
have reinvestigated and completed the excavations of Sectors 23, 27, and
8, and have opened Sectors 28, 29, 30, and 31 (Fig. 3). The tombs have
been systematically excavated, taking into account information on the
surface (burial mounds, ceramic deposits, bucrania, fireplaces, and post
holes) and collecting the material contained in the tombs and infill of
the pits. Knowing that more than 99% of the graves dating from this
period of the necropolis\'s utilisation were subsequently looted, the
infill of the pits is often the only way to get an idea of the contents
of the tomb and of the ceramics placed on the surface beside the mound.
The work undertaken in recent years has made it possible to build a
precise chronology for the early phases of the cemetery, from the
beginning of Early Kerma to the beginning of Middle Kerma. The study and
spatial distribution of the 409 tombs excavated since 2008 allows us to
follow in detail each stage from the evolution of funeral rites. An
absolute chronology was constructed using 23 14C dates that were
confronted with the typology of Kerma pottery and Egyptian imports, and
this makes it possible to distinguish five successive phases between
2550 and 1950 BC: *Kerma ancien 0, I, II, III,* and *Kerma moyen I*
(Fig. 3).[^8] We thus have a relatively precise chronological framework
which highlights five distinct phases of relatively short duration from
the beginning of Early Kerma to the Middle Kerma. Regarding the spatial
analysis, the first observable tendency during this evolution appears to
be the progressive increase in the size of the graves' pits. These are
small and rectangular during *Kerma ancien 0* (average surface of 0.9
m^2^), becoming oval and only marginally larger during *Kerma ancien I*
(average surface of 1.2 m^2^). It is only from *Kerma ancien II* that
they mostly become larger and more circular (average surface of 4.2
m^2^), with this tendency continuing in *Kerma ancien III*, with the
larger pits attaining a diameter exceeding 4 metres, occasionally more
quadrangular than circular (average surface of 5 m^2^). Then, in *Kerma
moyen I* appeared the first royal graves with a diameter ranging between
7 to 10 metres.
In the oldest sectors (*Kerma ancien 0* and *I*), the tombs are all of
equal size and their contents do not give the image of strong social
distinction. As is the rule in the Kerma period, the bodies are laid on
their right side, head towards the east. The objects found in the tombs
are not very abundant, metal (gold, copper alloy) is very rare. As
regards pottery, there is a marked presence of C-Group pots, which will
become more discrete over time.[^9]
The *Kerma ancien II* phase shows spectacular changes in the funerary
rites, compared to the earlier phases in the cemetery. The tombs are
generally larger and contain more objects. Metal is more regularly
attested, notably in the form of bronze mirrors and gold necklaces or
pendants. Animal sacrifices make their appearance (dogs, caprines) as
well as bucrania in front of some tumuli. Tombs with multiple burials
are also more frequent, indicating the development of accompanying or
sacrificed people, which will increase significantly in the succeeding
periods. The distinction between male and female graves becomes
systematic and stereotyped (Fig. 4). If the buried women are
systematically endowed with a stick, an ornament, and sometimes
particular objects or tools such as potter\'s tools, the male tombs are
systematically endowed with a bow.[^10]
During the *Kerma ancien III* phase, the same tendencies identified in
the previous phase continued. In the sectors of this period, we noticed
that young boys\' graves were also accompanied by bows (Fig. 5). The
four youngest individuals with a bow are less than 4 years old, and the
one in Figure 5 has a bow that is too large for his size. This
observation and their age -- less than two years for two of them --
shows that these bows are not necessarily placed in tombs to express the
activity of the deceased, but also have a symbolic connotation related
to male status. The richest graves sometimes distinguish themselves in a
more spectacular manner. One of them had 50 aligned bucrania to the
south and 38 decorated pots on the surface. It is at the beginning of
Middle Kerma (*Kerma moyen I*) that the first royal graves appeared,
like that recently discovered in Sector 31, whose diameter exceeds 10
metres, and which has over 1400 bucrania laid out in front of the
tumulus.[^11]
Differences between burials increase during Middle Kerma and, for this
period, it is not rare to find grave-pits of up to 10-15 meters in
diameter. This ranking between burials suggests a stratified society
which would culminate at the end of the Kingdom of Kerma. The central
inhumations in the largest tumuli are supposed to be the graves of the
rulers, the other tumuli could belong to high status individuals or to
free men and women.[^12] In certain instances, a mud-brick chapel was
erected on the west side of the tumulus (Fig. 6).[^13]
During Classic Kerma, the diameter of the largest graves is between 30
and 90 meters in diameter. The three most famous ones were built to a
uniform size with tumuli approximately 90 meters in diameter (KIII, IV,
X). Composed of a complex internal structure of mud-brick walls with a
corridor giving access to a central vaulted chamber, they are assumed to
belong to the most powerful rulers of Kerma[^14] (Kendall 1997). The
grave goods found in these burials and in some subsidiary ones were
particularly elaborate and the proportion of Egyptian imports high.[^15]
Two monumental funerary temples (KI, KXI) were erected north-west of the
tumuli KIII and KX. The Eastern Cemetery was abandoned as a location for
royal burials during the conquest of Kush by the Egyptians of the 18th
Dynasty, about 1500 BC. A last royal grave was erected 4 km to the west,
south of the ancient town of Kerma, and dates about 1480 BC.[^16]
# The archers' graves
From the *Kerma ancien II* to the *Kerma moyen I* phases onwards (Fig.
3), all male tombs that we excavated between 2008 and 2018 are equipped
with a bow, even those of children.[^17] Of course, many graves are too
looted to conclude that archery equipment was present, but as soon as
the grave is better preserved, the presence of archery elements is
attested, the smallest clue being the presence of the string made of
twisted sinews, probably from sheep or goats (Fig. 7). In view of the
number of graves excavated, we can therefore suppose that the presence
of men or boys with weapons is systematic for the earlier phases.
However, it is not possible to conclude definitively that the presence
of male archers was systematic for all phases of the Eastern Cemetery
without looking at the previous excavations of Reisner and Bonnet.
The \"Cemetery North\", close to our excavations (2008-2018), was
excavated in 1915 by Reisner, then in 1916 by his assistant W. G. Kemp
(135 graves). The documentation[^18] published after the death of
Reisner, is of lesser quality than for the southern part of the cemetery
corresponding to Classic Kerma and excavated in 1913-1914.[^19] The
tombs excavated by Kemp have not been spatially located. Nevertheless,
we know from our excavations that the \"Cemetery North\" covers *Kerma
ancien III* and *Kerma moyen I* phases. The documentation identifies the
grave of a woman with a staff, but there is no evidence of bows. In view
of the discreet nature of the evidence for archery, we believe that it
has simply not been identified. It must be said that the tombs were
systematically excavated by Egyptians from the village of Kouft,
assisted by Nubians. It is therefore very likely that they simply did
not observe these fleeting remains. In the "Cemetery M" (Middle Kerma,
see fig. 3) which dates of Middle Kerma, the documentation, published
with that of the "Cemetery N" is not better than this latter. No archer
or bow was identified. It is only in Classic Kerma that this practice
seems to disappear, according to Reisner's documentation,[^20] which is
of much better quality than that published by Dunham.[^21] It must be
said that this part of the cemetery is different from that of Early and
Middle Kerma. Our demographic estimate for the Eastern Cemetery
concludes that there were at least 36,000 individuals buried, but the
part attributed to Classic Kerma yields only 700. Simulations of burial
recruitment show that this part of the cemetery is the most selective
and contains only a small section of the ruling class, in contrast to
earlier periods. At this time, the armed persons are accompanied by
daggers, which led Hafsaas[^22] to conclude that there was a warrior
elite displaying this type of weapon, as was the case in Europe in the
Late Bronze and Iron Ages.
In the excavations of Bonnet, which involved just over 250 tombs, a few
archers were identified. Again, the excavations were carried out almost
systematically by Nubian excavators who were not trained to find small
remains as bow stings. Nevertheless, Bonnet reports the presence of some
archers in Early Kerma sectors, as well as in Middle Kerma sectors. The
famous mummy of an archer (Fig. 1) comes from Sector 4[^23] (*Kerma
ancien II*) and five other graves of archers were excavated in Sector 23
(Kerma (*Kerma ancien II*).[^24] For Middle Kerma, two graves of archers
were discovered in Sector 9 and one in Sector 11 (*Kerma moyen I*), as
well as another in sector 20 (*Kerma moyen IV*).[^25] Finally, we had
the opportunity to excavate a grave in sector 24 (*Kerma moyen V*) which
contained 36 lunates corresponding to arrowheads.[^26] From all these
observations, we can assume that the tradition of male burials as
archers started in the *Kerma ancien II* phase and must have continued
until the end of Middle Kerma.[^27]
Let us return to the archers\' graves of the oldest sectors.[^28] Their
equipment consists of:
\- One or two bows, single or double-curved (Fig. 8). It seems to us
that not too much should be made of this distinction, because the double
curvature can be achieved by deformation. It does not necessarily
suggest a composite bow, attested in Egypt later and supposedly
introduced by the Hyksos.[^29] The bow with a double curvature does not
necessarily imply that it is composite, which is a far more
sophisticated manufacturing technique, since it is not attested in
Africa at this time. On the other hand, ethnographic material describes
simple techniques to obtain a strong incurvation of the extremities of
the bow, which consist in bending the wood by means of ligaments and
forms.[^30] It is probably the use of similar techniques which explain
the well-attested differences in the Nubian bows. The most common
dimension is 120 cm, but two larger bows, about 150 cm long, have been
found. In a child's tomb, a small model, about 90 cm long, was
discovered. The remains of bow-strings have often been found in situ
alongside the bow. In some instances, the extent of the bow's curvature
leads one to believe that it was strung when placed in the tomb. The bow
is always placed to the north of the body, close to the hands. It is
occasionally decorated with a plume of ostrich feathers at its extremity
(Fig. 9). It has not been possible to identify the species of wood used
to manufacture the bows, since these had been too severely damaged by
termites.
\- Reed arrows with a tail and several embedded microliths, are similar
to the arrows of Naga-ed-Der in Egypt, dated to the 6^th^ to 12^th^
Dynasty, i.e., a period contemporaneous with Middle Kerma.[^31] The
arrowheads are lunates made of quartz, carnelian, or sometimes flint
(Fig. 10). The few surviving examples correspond to the A3 type of
fitting defined by Clark et al.,[^32] with one placed at the tip of the
arrow and the other two at the sides. The arrows would have been
inserted in a quiver, but in at least one instance they were placed
directly in the archer\'s left hand.
\- A goat-skin leather quiver. Its presence in the tombs is not
systematic, but we have been able to identify seven more or less
complete ones. They are sewn, some wide and rather short, while others
are slenderer, like the example in Figure 11.
\- A leather archer\'s wrist-guard of a specific model that seems to be
typical of the Kerma tradition (Fig. 12). These have been found in a few
cases *in situ*, on the left wrist of the deceased (Fig. 13), they are
always of the same design, with the protective part provided with two
concave sides and a pointed end. Some similar specimens are known in
Egypt in the mass grave of soldiers found at Deir el-Bahari of the 12th
Dynasty.[^33] This type of wrist-guard is unusual in Egypt and some
authors considered it to have come from the north, but it probably
belongs to Nubian archers originally attached to the Kerma culture.[^34]
These observations will be the subject of more detailed descriptions in
the future, especially the numerous leather objects, which are the
subject of a recently started PhD thesis.[^35] Of all the tombs
excavated, only two adult tombs were almost (Fig. 1) or completely
intact (Fig. 13). Enriched by the observations made on the other male
tombs, it is possible to reconstruct the appearance of these archers,
who resemble quite closely the representations made by the Egyptians,
notably those on the temple of Amun at Beit El-Wali, which describe the
expedition of Rameses II in Nubia (Fig. 14). Although later than the
tombs where we made our observations, the white earrings of the men
depicted in these frescoes are the same as those that first appear in
the *Kerma ancien II* phase and continue thereafter. In fact, these
earrings obtained from a Nile shell were found only in male tombs (Fig.
15). Similarly, the men of Kerma wear a sheep-skin loincloth that still
has its wool, which can be dark brown, beige, or quite frequently
bicoloured, with alternating black and beige spots (Fig. 16). This
bicoloured fur, which bears witness to a selection process resulting
from advanced domestication,[^36] could be a form of imitation of the
coat of leopards, such as those found on Egyptian frescoes. However, we
never found a leopard-skin loincloth during our excavations in the
Eastern Cemetery. Moreover, we cannot exclude that some archers were
naked and did not wear a loincloth, as suggested by an engraving from
Wadi Sabu at the 3^rd^ cataract (Fig. 17), where a series of six archers
wearing a feather on their head, are rendered in a figurative style very
close to that observed at Kerma;[^37] among this group, only one archer
is wearing a loincloth, while the others are naked. Finally, we did not
have occasion to observe the presence of a feather belonging to the
headdress of the buried, but Bonnet points out the trace of a headband
in the tomb of a mummified archer (Fig. 1) that could have served to
attach a feather.[^38]
# Evolution of funeral rites and the emergence of a state
At Kerma, men and boys of all ages are systematically buried with their
archers\' equipment from about 2300 BC onwards, and continues for
several centuries, probably until the end of the Middle Kerma about 1750
BC. Clearly, there is a symbolic dimension to this display, underscored
by the fact that even children as young as 1.5 years old are equipped
with bows. Moreover, researchers have repeatedly pointed out that there
are numerous instances of evidence for violence in the Classic Kerma
part of the cemetery,[^39] and the anthropologist working on the
skeletons of Early Kerma has also noted the abundance of such evidence,
especially on young men.[^40] It must therefore be admitted that the
presence of archers cannot only be symbolic and that it also reflects
the status of these warriors, who were perhaps trained in the handling
of the bow from a very young age. As reported by the Egyptians, this
weapon was of major importance in Nubia and at the time of Early Kerma,
the hundreds of excavated tombs did not reveal many other kinds of
weapons. Mace heads are exceptional in this period, and we found only
one in 409 excavated tombs. The spears must have been made of wood or
composite material. We found a long point manufactured from a mammal
long bone that could have been the apex of a spear. As for copper alloy
daggers, they only appear at the end of Early Kerma and become more
numerous during Middle Kerma, becoming more elongated, to finally be
replaced by the daggers of Classic Kerma. We can also point out the
wooden throwing sticks or the several bronze spearheads, but the aim is
not to draw up a complete inventory of weapons, an exercise that has
already been done for weapons in this necropolis.[^41]
If we have already underlined that it is from the *Kerma ancien II*
phase (2300-2150 BC) that the distinctions between the tombs begin to be
marked, this tendency will be reinforced thereafter to culminate with
the appearance of the first royal tombs of the *Kerma moyen I* phase
(2050-1950 BC). These tombs, unfortunately looted, are notable for their
size (7 to 10 m in diameter for the pit, 12 to 15 m for the tumulus),
for the hundreds or even thousands of bucrania deposited to the south of
the tumulus, but also for the quantity of fine ceramics laid out inside
the pit and around the tumulus. Other criteria, such as the animal and
human sacrifices -- which some prefer to call accompanying deaths --
also underline the status of the individuals, insofar as their number is
proportional to the dimensions of the grave. Finally, the quantity of
Egyptian ceramics gives an idea of the intensity of the exchanges (Fig.
18).
During the first phase of Eastern Cemetery, exchanges with Egypt are
already significant, and it is possible that the presence of several
C-Group features is evidence of important contacts between Upper and
Lower Nubia.[^42] During the next phase, exchanges decline, a sign of a
certain loss of Egyptian control over Lower Nubia, as has already been
pointed out.[^43] It is during the *Kerma ancien II* phase (2300-2150
BC) that imports increase again. It is also from this time onwards that
the archers\' tombs appear, that the distinctions between the tombs
start to be significant, and that the wealth becomes more important,
notably through the presence of Egyptian copper alloy mirrors which will
attract the interest of the looters.
It is precisely during this phase that Egyptian sources mention the
famous expeditions of Harkhuf,[^44] a high dignitary of Aswan. His tomb,
covered with inscriptions, relates the story of his three journeys to
Nubia commissioned by the pharaohs Merenre I and Pepi II, around 2250
BC. These were obviously expeditions aimed at reopening trade routes by
making contact and trading with the Nubian populations located south of
the 2^nd^ cataract[^45]. The narrative tells us that several populations
or tribes populate Nubia and do not necessarily maintain peaceful
relations between them[^46]. These groups are already hierarchical with
dominant personalities capable of gathering armed men in quantity,
goods, and donkeys by the dozen, to accompany Harkhuf and his escort. It
is likely that Kerma then developed a coercive policy to ensure the
control of the lucrative trade with the Egyptians, in an atmosphere of
conflicts between tribes or lineages. The valorisation of the role of
warriors in funeral rites could be a consequence of this.
From this point onwards, the indications of a more marked social
stratification increase rapidly with an increase in imports, in the
number of human sacrifices, in the number of bucrania in front of the
largest tombs, as well as in the number of red fine ware with black
rims, whose decorations multiply (Fig. 18). One can imagine a
competition between dominant lineages, as we have suggested in an
analysis of the significance of fine ceramics and their
decorations[^47]. This competition will lead to the emergence of a
dominant lineage that will concentrate the wealth and show it in the
funeral rites, as exemplified by the first royal tombs, which appear
around 2000 BC (Fig. 19). It is from this period onwards that the
necropolis will undergo a spectacular development, much more important
demographically than natural population growth could allow. Kerma must
therefore have been the centre of the kingdom from this period onwards
and attracted populations from its kingdom to settle in the region.
# Bibliography
Bonnet, Charles. "Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes
de 1980-1981 et 1981-1982", in: Bonnet, C. & collab. Les fouilles
archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan), *Genava, n.s.,* 30 (1982): pp. 1-25.
Bonnet, Charles. "Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes
de 1982-1983 et 1983-1984", in: Bonnet, C. & collab. Les fouilles
archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan), *Genava, n.s.,* 32 (1984): pp. 5-42.
Bonnet, Charles. "Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes
de 1984-1985 et 1985-1986", in: Bonnet, C. & collab. Les fouilles
archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan), *Genava, n.s.,* 34 (1986): pp. 5-20.
Bonnet, Charles. "Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes
de 1993-1994 et 1994-1995", in: Bonnet, C. & collab. Les fouilles
archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan), *Genava, n.s.,* 43 (1995): pp. 31-64.
Bonnet, Charles. *Edifices et rites funéraires à Kerma*.
Errance. Paris, 2000.
Bonnet, Charles., Honegger, Matthieu. "The
Eastern Cemetery of Kerma", in Emberling, G., Williams, B. (eds.). *The
Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia* (2020): pp. 213-226.
Clark, John. D, Phillips, James L.,
Staley, Preston S. "Interpretations of prehistoric
technology from ancient egyptian and other sources, part 1: ancient
egyptian bows and arrows and their relevance for prehistory".
*Paleorient*, 2, 2 (1974): pp. 323-388.
Dunham, Dows. *Excavations at Kerma. Part VI: subsidiary
nubian graves, excavated by the late George A. Reisner in 1915-1916, not
included in his Excavations at Kerma, I-III and IV-V, published by him
in the Harvard African Studies, V and VI, 1923*. Boston: Museum of Fine
Arts, 1982.
Gratien, Brigitte. *Les cultures Kerma. Essai de
classification*. Université de Lille III, 1978.
Hafsaas-Tsakos, Henriette. "Edges of bronze and
expressions of masculinity: the emergence of a warrior class at Kerma in
Sudan", *Antiquity* 87 (2013): pp. 79-91.
Honegger, Matthieu. "Lunate microliths in the Holocene
industries of Nubia: Multifunctional tools, sickle blades or weapon
elements?". In: Pétillon J.-M. *et al.* (coord.). Projectile weapon
elements from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic (Proceeding of the
session C83 of the 15^th^ Congress of the IUPPS, Lisbon, 4-9 September
2006), *Palethnologie*, 1 (2009): pp.161-173.
Honegger, Matthieu. "La plus ancienne tombe royale de
Kerma en Nubie", *Bull. Soc. Neuchâtel. Sci. Nat.* 138 (2018): pp.
185-198.
Honegger, Matthieu. "New Data on the Origins of Kerma".
In: Honegger, M. (ed.), *Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century,
proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Society for
Nubian Studies (Neuchâtel, 2014)*. Leuwen (2018): pp. 19-34.
Honegger, Matthieu. "The Eastern Cemetery of Kerma and its
first Royal Grave", Kerma, document de la mission archéologique Suisse
au Soudan, 8 (2019): pp. 6-19.
Honegger, Matthieu. "Style and identity symbols: an
attempt to define the social meaning of the Kerma funerary fineware and
its decorations", in Rondot, V. et al. (eds.) Etudes Nubiennes 2018,
Louvre Museum, 10-15 sept. 2018, forthcoming.
Honegger, Matthieu, [Fallet]{.smallcaps}, Camille.
"Archers Tombs of the Kerma ancien", *Kerma, document de la mission
archéologique Suisse au Soudan* 6 (2015) : pp. 16-30.
Judd, Margaret. "Ancient Injury Recidivism: An Example
from the Kerma Period of Ancient Nubia", *International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology* 12 (2002): pp. 89--102.
Kendall, Timothy. *Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush 2500-1500
B.C. The Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire*. National
Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution, 1977.
Lacovara, Peter. "The Stone Vase Deposit at Kerma". In:
Davies, W.V. (ed.). *Egypt and Africa, Nubia from Prehistory to Islam*,
London: British Museum Press (1991): pp. 118-128.
Le Quellec, Jean-Loïc. "Arcs et archers sahariens: les
représentations d'archers dans l'art rupestre du Sahara central", *Tir à
l'arc Magazine*, 25 (2014) : pp. 60-63.
Le Quellec, Jean-Loïc. "Arcs et bracelets d'archers au
Sahara et en Égypte, avec une nouvelle proposition de lecture des
'nasses' sahariennes", *Cahiers de l'ARRS*, 15 (2011) : pp. 201-220.
Manzo, Andrea. "Weapons, ideology and identity at Kerma
(Upper Nubia, 2500-1500 BC)", *Annali, sezione orientale* 76 (2016): pp.
3-29.
Minor, Elizabeth. *The Use of Egyptian and Egyptianizing
Material Culture in Nubian Burials of the Classic Kerma Period*. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2012:
<https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0nn0m0fv>.
Müller, Hans W. *Der \'Armreif\' des Konigs Ahmose und der
Handgelenkschutz des Bogenschützen im alten Ägypten und Vorderasien.*
SDAIK, 25. Mainz, 1989.
Obsomer, Claude. "Les expéditions d'Herkhouf (VIe
dynastie) et la localisation de Iam". In: Bruwier, M.-C. (ed.).
*Pharaons Noirs: Sur la piste des 40 jours*. Musée Royal de Mariemont
(2007): pp. 39-52.
Reisner, George A. *Excavations at Kerma. Harvard African
Studies 5-6*. Peabody Museum of Harvard University, 1923.
Smith, Stuart Tyson. "Nubia and Egypt: Interaction,
acculturation, and secondary state formation from the third to first
millennium BC", In: Cusick, James G. (ed.). *Studies in Culture Contact:
Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology*. Southern Illinois
University Press (1995): pp. 256-287.
Testart, Alain. *Éléments de classification des sociétés*.
Errance. Paris, 2005.
Török, László. *Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region
between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC - 500 AD*. Leiden, 2009.
Vogel, Carola. "Fallen Heroes?: Winlock\'s \'Slain
Soldiers\' Reconsidered", *The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology*, 89
(2003): pp. 239-245.
Walsh, Carl. "Techniques for Egyptian Eyes: Diplomacy and
the Transmission of Cosmetic Practices between Egypt and Kerma", Journal
of Egyptian History (2021): pp. 295-332.
Winlock, Herbert E. *The Slain Soldiers of
Neb-hepet-Re\'-Mentu-entu-Hotpe*. Publications of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, 16. New York, 1945.
[^1]: Bonnet, "Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan) ", 1982,
pp. 15-19 ; 1984, p. 17 ; 1986, p. 12 ; 1995, p. 44.
[^2]: Bonnet, "Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan) ", 1982,
pp. 15-19.
[^3]: Kerma is the name of the village next to the city of Kerma and its
eastern cemetery. It gave its name to the culture of Kerma, defined
by its ceramics and its funeral rites (see Gratien, *Les cultures
Kerma. Essai de classification*). This culture is also referred to
as the Kingdom of Kerma. In the context of anthropological theories
on the evolution of societies, a kingdom can be equated with a state
(see Testart, *éléments de classification des sociétés*). It can
also be considered as a secondary state, insofar as it seems to
emerge as a result of its contacts with the Egyptian state, which
originated more than five centuries before (Smith, "Nubia and Egypt:
Interaction, acculturation, and secondary state formation from the
third to first millennium BC").
[^4]: Hafsaas-Tsakos, "Edges of bronze and expressions of masculinity:
the emergence of a warrior class at Kerma in Sudan", pp. 79-91;
Manzo, "Weapons, ideology and identity at Kerma (Upper Nubia,
2500-1500 BC)", pp. 3-29.
[^5]: Judd, "Ancient Injury Recidivism: An Example from the Kerma Period
of Ancient Nubia", pp. 89-102.
[^6]: Reisner, *Excavations at Kerma. Harvard African Studies 5-6*.
[^7]: This project was supported by the Swiss National Fund (SNF
100011_163021/1), the State Secretariat for Education, Research and
Innovation of the Swiss Confederation, the Kerma Foundation, and the
University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland). We also thank Dr Abdelrahman
Ali, director of the National Corporation of Antiquities and Museums
of Sudan (NCAM) for his support.
[^8]: Honegger, "La plus ancienne tombe royale de Kerma en Nubie", pp.
189-194; Honegger, "New Data on the Origins of Kerma", pp. 21-24.
[^9]: Honegger, "New Data on the Origins of Kerma", pp. 25-28.
[^10]: Bonnet and Honegger, "The Eastern Cemetery of Kerma", pp.
216-218.
[^11]: Honegger "La plus ancienne tombe royale de Kerma en Nubie", pp.
194-197. See also the end of this paper and figure 15.
[^12]: Hafsaas-Tsakos, "Edges of bronze and expressions of masculinity:
the emergence of a warrior class at Kerma in Sudan", pp. 79-91.
[^13]: Mud brick chapels were built in connection with the most
important and largest graves, Bonnet, *Edifices et rites funéraires
à Kerma*.
[^14]: Kendall, *Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush 2500-1500 B.C. The
Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire*.
[^15]: See Minor, The Use of Egyptian and Egyptianizing Material Culture
in Nubian Burials of the Classic Kerma Period and Walsh, "Techniques
for Egyptian Eyes: Diplomacy and the Transmission of Cosmetic
Practices between Egypt and Kerma".
[^16]: Bonnet and Honegger, "The Eastern Cemetery of Kerma", pp.
223-224.
[^17]: Sector 23 contained 122 individuals of which 90 were discovered
by our team. Of these 90 individuals, 49 were mature (25 female and
20 male), 37 immature and 4 undetermined. The total number of
archers\' graves was 24, of which 15 were adult males, 3 were
children under 10 years of age, 5 were between 10 and 19 years of
age, and one grave did not yield enough human remains to determine
age and sex. In the Sector 29 (*Kerma ancien III)*, 18 archers were
identified on a total of 72 individuals. In the Sector 31 (*Kerma
moyen I*), 8 archers were identified on a total of 20 individuals.
The bio-anthropological data are provided by Agathe Chen, in charge
of the study of the skeletons of the Eastern Cemetery.
[^18]: Dunham, *Excavations at Kerma. Part VI.*
[^19]: Reisner, *Excavations at Kerma.*
[^20]: Reisner, *Excavations at Kerma.*
[^21]: Dunham, *Excavations at Kerma. Part VI.*
[^22]: Hafsaas-Tsakos "Edges of bronze and expressions of masculinity:
the emergence of a warrior class at Kerma in Sudan", pp. 79-91.
[^23]: Bonnet, "Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan) ", 1982,
p. 15-19.
[^24]: They were excavated in January 1996 but remain unpublished.
[^25]: Bonnet, "Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan) ", 1986,
p. 12 ; 1995, p. 44.
[^26]: Honegger, "Lunate microliths in the Holocene industries of Nubia:
Multifunctional tools, sickle blades or weapon elements?", pp.
169-171.
[^27]: The number of archers for Middle Kerma may seem low. However, it
should be remembered that these tombs are often much more plundered
than those of Early Kerma, and that we did not have the opportunity
to excavate tombs later than Kerma moyen I during our programme
conducted between 1998 and 2008.
[^28]: Honegger and Fallet, "Archers Tombs of the Kerma ancien", pp.
16-30.
[^29]: Le Quellec "Arcs et archers sahariens: les représentations
d'archers dans l'art rupestre du Sahara central", p. 62 ; Le Quellec
"Arcs et bracelets d'archers au Sahara et en Égypte, avec une
nouvelle proposition de lecture des 'nasses' sahariennes", pp.
208-211.
[^30]: Ibid.
[^31]: Honegger, "Lunate microliths in the Holocene industries of Nubia:
Multifunctional tools, sickle blades or weapon elements?", pp.
169-171.
[^32]: Clark *et al*. "Interpretations of prehistoric technology from
ancient Egyptian and other sources, part 1 : ancient Egyptian bows
and arrows and their relevance for prehistory", fig. 9, p. 362.
[^33]: The significance of this find of 59 soldiers is still debated and
authors have sought to link it to one of the many conflicts during
the 12th Dynasty, Winlock, *Slain Soldiers.* For a discussion on the
interpretations of this find, see Vogel "Fallen Heroes?: Winlock\'s
\'Slain Soldiers\' Reconsidered".
[^34]: Müller describes 5 wrist-guards, all made of leather, similar in
shape to those of Kerma. He also presents another similar example
from Gebelin. *Der \'Armreif\' des Konigs Ahmose und der
Handgelenkschutz des Bogenschützen im alten Ägypten und
Vorderasien*, pp. 16-17 and pl. V.
[^35]: Théophile Burnat, "Manufacture et usages du cuir dans le royaume
de Kerma (Soudan, IIIe et IIe millénaires av. n. è.) ", Université
de Neuchâtel.
[^36]: Louis Chaix, pers. comm.
[^37]: Honegger and Fallet, "Archers Tombs of the Kerma ancien", p. 20.
[^38]: Bonnet, "Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan) ", 1982,
p. 15.
[^39]: Cf. Judd, "Ancient Injury Recidivism: An Example from the Kerma
Period of Ancient Nubia", pp. 89--102.
[^40]: Agathe Chen, pers. comm.
[^41]: Manzo, "Weapons, ideology and identity at Kerma (Upper Nubia,
2500-1500 BC)", pp. 3-29.
[^42]: Honegger, "The Eastern Cemetery of Kerma and its first Royal
Grave", pp. 6-19; Honegger, "La plus ancienne tombe royale de Kerma
en Nubie", pp. 185-198.
[^43]: Török, *Between Two Worlds*, pp. 53-73.
[^44]: There is still some debate about the country of destination of
these expeditions, called *Iam* by the Egyptians. Kerma is one of
these possibilities, and one of the only ones that provides early
evidence of contact with the Egyptians in Upper Nubia. Other
scholars have proposed the Western Nubian Desert or a region further
south, towards Kordofan and Darfur. For a summary and discussion of
these different hypotheses, see Obsomer, "Les expéditions d'Herkhouf
(VIe dynastie) et la localisation de Iam", pp. 39-52.
[^45]: Lacovara, "The Stone Vase Deposit at Kerma", pp. 118-128.
[^46]: Török, *Between Two Worlds*, pp. 69-70.
[^47]: Honegger, "Style and identity symbols: an attempt to define the
social meaning of the Kerma funerary fineware and its decorations",
forthcoming.

2394
content/article/jakobi.md
View file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

1432
content/article/matic.md
View file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

601
content/article/norton.md
View file

@ -1,601 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective"
authors: ["russelnorton.md"]
abstract: "Ama verbs are comparable with Nubian and other related languages in their clause-final syntax, CVC root shape, and some affixes. However, there is also considerable innovation in adjoined relative clauses, a shift from number to aspect marking traced by *T/K* morphology, and other changes in the order and meaning of affixes. These developments show a unique trend of concretization of core clause constituents, and internal growth in the complexity of verbs in isolation from other languages. On the other hand, Ama’s stable distributive pluractional represents a wider Eastern Sudanic category. The late loss of pronominal subject marking supports a hypothesis that the Ama language was used for inter-group communication with Kordofan Nubians."
keywords: ["Ama", "Northern East Sudanic", "comparative linguistics", "Nilo-Saharan", "Nyimang", "Afitti"]
---
# Preliminaries
Ama is a Northern East Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north-west of Dilling, near to where Kordofan Nubian languages are spoken in the north-western Nuba Mountains. “Ama” (*ámá* “people”) is the self-designated name of the language community identified by the ISO639-3 code [nyi] and replaces the name “Nyimang” in older sources,[^1] as “Ama” is the name used in local literature in the language created over the last three decades. Nyimang is an altered form of “Nyima,” one of the mountains in the Ama homeland, which is now used as the name of the branch of Eastern Sudanic consisting of Ama [nyi] and Afitti [aft]. I will assume that Nyima is one of a group of four extant northern branches of the Eastern Sudanic family, the others being Nubian, the Nara language, and Taman.[^2]
[^1]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language* and “A survey of the phonetics and grammatical structure of the Nuba Mountain languages with particular reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ,” 40: p. 107.
[^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**.
[^3]: De Voogt, “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology,” p. 47.
| | | | | | |
|-----|------------------|----|-----------------------------------|-----|------------------|
| *kɛ́r* | "woman" | *nɪ́* | "kill" [fact]({sc}) | *ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "do" [tr]({sc}) |
| *kɛ̄r* | "crane" (bird sp.) | *nɪ̄* | "kill" [prog 3]({sc}) | *ɕɪ̄ɛ̄* | "say" |
| *kɛ̀r* | "around" | *nɪ̀* | "kill" [prog 1/2]({sc}) | *ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "do" [itr]({sc})|
**~~Table 1: Level tone contrasts in Ama~~**
A brief overview of Ama morphosyntax can be gained by locating it in the typology of Heine and Voßen,[^4] which assesses African languages on the presence of nominal classification, nominal case, and verbal derivation. In Ama, the role of nominal classification is limited due to a remarkable lack of nominal number affixes, although there is some differentiated grammatical behavior of rational nominals.[^5] However, case is extensive in Ama,[^6] as is typical of Nilo-Saharan verb-final languages,[^7] and likewise verbal derivation is extensive.
[^4]: Heine & Voßen, “Sprachtypologie,” cited in Kröger, “Typology Put to Practical Use,” p. 159.
[^5]: Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” pp. 75⁠–⁠76, 85; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 175⁠–1⁠76.
[^6]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §§2–⁠10.
[^7]: Dimmendaal, “Africa’s Verb-final Languages,” §9.2.3.
| | Feature | Presence | Categories |
|----|------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | Nominal classification | limited | rational |
| 2. | Nominal case | extensive | accusative, dative, genitive, ablative, locatives |
| 3. | Verbal derivation | extensive | causative, applicative, reciprocal, directional |
**~~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 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.
[^10]: Waag, *The Fur Verb and Its Context*, p. 49; low tone is unmarked in the Fur two-tone system.
| Intransitive coverbs | | Transitive coverbs | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *nʊ̄nʊ̄ɲ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "hop" | *díɟí ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "work" |
| *ɟɪ̀ɟɪ̀ɡ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "speak angrily" | *ɟɛ̀rɟɛ̀r ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "scatter" |
| *àɽɪ̀mɛ̀ ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "be angry" | *t̪úūl ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "destroy" |
| *ōlɡ-ēn ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "cry" | *dɪ́ɡl-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "gather" (KN *ɖigil*)[^11] |
| *tɔ̄ɡl-ɛ̄n ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "tie oneself" | *fɔ̄ɟ-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "make suffer" |
| *sɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄n ɕɪ̀ɛ̄* | "complain" | *tɪ̄m-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "finish" |
| | | *kɔ̄w-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "iron" (SA *kowa*) |
| | | *rɛ̄kb-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "ride" (SA *rikib*) |
| | | *mɪ̄skɪ̄l-ɛ̄n ɕɪ́ɛ̄* | "give someone a missed call" (SA *miskil*) |
**~~Table 3. Ama coverbs~~**
[^11]: Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 159. Her data from Kordofan Nubian varieties shows high tone.
While Ama’s verb-final word order and use of coverbs are reminiscent of other Nilo-Saharan languages, relative clauses in Ama are of a globally rare type. Ama uses adjoined relative clauses at the end of the main clause, and these modify the last noun of the main clause.[^12]
[^12]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 178, shows cleft constructions with a similar core+adjoined structure, *wadang nɔ a nɛ* [*a meo tolun*] "This is the man [I saw yesterday].”
{{< gloss "(1)" >}}
{r} **Ama**
{g} *àɪ̀*,[1sg]({sc})|*bā*,[decl.ver]({sc})| *ìr-ò*,elephant-[acc]({sc})| *tɛ̀lɛ̄*,see|,[|*(ɪ̀n)*,[3sg]({sc})|*kwārāŋ-àʊ̀*,field-[loc]({sc})|*túŋ*,sleep:[prog]({sc}) ]|
{r} “I definitely saw the elephant who was sleeping in a field.”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(2)" >}}
{g} ābɪ̄dɪ̄-ʊ̄ŋ,God-[gen]({sc})|*kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*d̪ɛ̄*,[ev]({sc})|*ɪ̄rɪ̄d̪ā*,message|*wʊ̄ɔ̄*,keep:[prog]({sc})|*kɛ̄r-àʊ̀*,girl (*kɛ̄rà*)-[loc]({sc})|,[|*yʊ̄sʊ̄f-ɪ̄l*,Joseph-[loc]({sc})|*tɪ̄ŋ-ɛ́ɪ́*,choose-[med]({sc}) ]|
{r} “An angel from God had a message for a girl who was engaged to Joseph.”
{{< /gloss >}}
The adjoined relative clause strategy means that verbs tend not to occur in noun phrases in Ama, although for completeness we should observe that they are not entirely excluded. Since it is impossible to modify the subject of a transitive clause by an adjoined relative clause, as it is separated by another object or oblique noun, speakers consulted confirmed that it is grammatically acceptable to modify a subject noun by a progressive verb within the noun phrase as in (3), although they felt this is not used much, and I have not found examples in texts. However, verb participles marked by the suffix *-ɔ̀* (or *-ò* by vowel harmony) also occur in noun phrases, including in texts as in (4) and (5).
{{< gloss "(3)" >}}
{r} Unmarked relative clause in subject noun phrase (elicited)
{g} *ìr*,elephant|*nɔ̄*,this|,[|*mūɕ-èɡ*,run-[dir:prog]({sc}) ]|*bā*,[decl.ver]({sc})|*āŋ*,[1sg.acc]({sc})|*t̪ɛ̀lɛ̄*,see:[fact]({sc})|
{r} “This running elephant definitely saw me.”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(4)" >}}
{r} Participial subject relative clause
{g} *ə́níŋè*,when|,[|*wád̪à*,word|*kìr-d̪-ò*,cut-[pct-ptcp]({sc}) ]|*wàá*,people|*ɕɪ̀ɽāɡɪ́d̪ɪ́*,rule|*wāɡ-áʊ́*,keep-[pst.prog]({sc})|
{r} “When the judges (lit. ‘cut-word people’) were ruling,”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(5)" >}}
{r} Participial object relative clause
{g} *mʊ̄rd̪à*,horse|,[|*kʊ̄ɟɔ̄-ɔ̀*,saddle-[ptcp]({sc}) ]|*d̪ɛ̄*,[ev]({sc})|*ŋáŋà*,attention|*túɽāk*,warn:[prog]({sc})|
{r} “The saddled horse is warning, look out.”
{{< /gloss >}}
Nevertheless, the adjoined relative clause strategy is an innovative feature of Ama that tends to place information about participants outside the noun phrase where they are mentioned. A similar distribution applies to the expression of number. Within the noun phrase, there are no number affixes, although there is a plural specifier *ŋɪ̄* or *ɡɪ̄* that can be used with rational nouns as seen in (6). Speakers consulted assess this specifier the same way as unmarked relative clauses within the noun phrase: acceptable, but not used much. However, Ama also has a post-verbal quantifier *ɡàɪ̀* that can be used when there is a plural participant in the clause, as shown in (7).[^14]
[^14]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 176, claims that “GAI gives the idea of completion, going on till an act is finished,” although all his examples involve a plural subject "they.” His claim suggests that this quantifier may have a collective function, over all participants and/or over all the stages in the completion of the event. It can nevertheless appear in the same clause as distributive marking *-ɪ́d̪,* as in an example shown in Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” p. 83, *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄ ɡàɪ̀* "the child saw each of the children [until she had seen them all].”
{{< gloss "(6)" >}}
{r} Plural noun phrase specifier (elicited)
{g} *ābā*,father|*dɪ̀à*,big|*ŋɪ̄*,[pl]({sc})|
{r} “grandfathers”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(7)" >}}
{r} Post-verbal plural quantifier
{g} *wàá*,people|*dū*,[top]({sc})|*fāɽāŋ*,drum|*fɪ̄l*,dance:[prog]({sc})|*ɡàɪ̀*,[pl]({sc})|
{r} “The people were all dancing to a drum.”
{{< /gloss >}}
We will return to this tendency to express relative clauses and number late in the clause after considering other evidence from verb stems.
# 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.
[^15]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177.
## 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 (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.
| | active verb | stative verb |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| [fact]({sc}) | *t̪àl* “ate” (past perf.) | *t̪ʊ̄-máɪ́* “know” (pres. cont.) |
| [prog]({sc}) | *tām* “is eating” | ?*máɪ́* “is knowing” |
**~~Table 4. Verb stems of active and stative verbs~~**
## Stem Formation and the Verb Root
Although factative aspect is broader in meaning and more heavily used in text, the progressive stem is generally more basic in form, often consisting only of the bare root. However, neither the factative stem nor the progressive stem is predictable from the other in general because: (i) factative stems belong to various theme vowel classes, and some belong to a class taking a formative prefix *t̪V-*; (ii) in some verbs the two stems have two different suppletive roots; and (iii) the progressive stems of some verbs require certain obligatory incorporated affixes. When the root is extracted from any additional formatives, CVC is the most frequent verb root shape.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss | morphology other than [fact]({sc}) theme vowel |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *sāŋ-ɔ̄* | *sāŋ* | search | |
| *kɪ̄r-ɛ̄* | *kɪ̄r* | cut | |
| *wāɡ-ā* | *wʊ̄ɔ̄* | keep | suppletive roots |
| *t̪ī-ə̀* | *túŋ* | sleep | suppletive roots |
| *t̪áw-ɔ̄* | *ɡēd̪-ì* | cook | suppletive roots, final *-i* required after *d̪* |
| *ɟɛ́ɡ-ɛ̄* | *ɟēɡ-īn* | leave s.th. | applicative *-(ī)n* |
| *á-bɪ̄ɽ-ɪ̄ŋ-ɔ̄* | *á-bɪ̄ɽ-ɪ̄ŋ* | invent | causative *á-* and inchoative *-ɪ̄ŋ* |
| *t̪ī-ŋīl-ē* | *ŋɪ̄l* | laugh | factative *t̪V-* |
| *t̪ū-mūs-ò* | *mús-èɡ* | run | factative *t̪V-* ~ directional *-èɡ* |
| *t̪ɪ́-ɡɛ̄l-ɛ̄* | *á-ɡɛ̄l* | wash | causative-factative *t̪V́-* ~ causative *á-* |
| *ɕɪ̀-ɛ̄* | *á-ɕɪ̄* | do (intr.) | causative *á-* |
**~~Table 5. Examples of verb stems~~**
The CVC shape of verb roots is characteristic across Eastern Sudanic languages. In Gaahmg, for example, at least 90% of verb roots are CVC, whereas nouns are much more varied in shape.[^18] CVC is also the predominant shape in the following comparative data for verbs across Northern branches of Eastern Sudanic.[^19]
[^18]: Stirtz, *A Grammar of Gaahmg,* p. 40.
[^19]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* annex.
| Gloss | Nubian | Nara | Taman | Nyima | Proto-NES |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| be | *\*-a(n)/\*-a-ɡV* | *ne-/ge-* [pl]({sc}) | *\*an-/\*aɡ-* | *\*nV* | *\*(a)n/\*(a)ɡ* [pl]({sc}) |
| burn | *\*urr* | *kál, war* | *\*wer | *\*wul* "boil" | *\*wul,* [*\*wel*?] |
| buy | *\*jaan* | *tol ~ dol* | – | *\*tar* | *\*tol* |
| come | *\*taar* | *til* | *\*or,* [pf]({sc}) \*kun | *\*t̪ar/\*kud̪* | *\*tar,* [*\*kud*?] |
| cut | *\*mer* | *ked* | *\*kid* | – (Ama *kɪr*) | *\*kɛd* |
| dance | *\*baan* | *bàl, bàr* | – | *\*bal/fal* | *\*bal* |
| drink | *\*nii* | *l-, líí-* | *\*li* | – (Ama *li*) | *\*li* |
| eat | *\*kal* | *kal* | *\*ŋan* | *\*t̪al/\*tam* | *\*kal/\*kamb* [pl]({sc}) |
| give | *\*tir* (2/3), *\*deen* (1) | *nin* | *\*ti(n)* | *\*t̪Vɡ, \*t̪ɔ́ŋ* (1) | *\*te(n)* [final C?], *\*den* |
| look | *\*ɡuuɲ* | – | *\*ɡun,* [pf]({sc}) *\*ɡud* | *\*t̪iɡol* | *\*guɲ* [final C?] |
| love, want | *\*doll, \*oon* | *sol* | – (Tama *tar*) | – (Ama *war*) | *\*tor* |
| sit | *\*ti(i)g/\*te(e)g* | *dengi, daŋŋi* "wait" | *\*juk* | *\*dɔɲ* | *\*daŋ* |
| take, carry | *\*aar* | – | *\*ar-i* | *\*-ur* | *\*ar* |
| take, gather | *\*dumm* | *nem* | – (Tama *tɔ-mɔɽ*) | – (Ama *dum-*) | *\*dɔm* |
| take, raise | *\*eɲ* | *hind* | *\*eɲ* | – (Ama *ɲɔn* "carry") | *\*meɲ ~ \*ɲeɲ* |
**~~Table 6. Verbs across Northern East Sudanic (NES)~~**
## T/K Morphology for Factative/Progressive {#tk}
An alternation between *t̪-* and *k-* cuts into the characteristic CVC shape in one class of Ama verbs as a marker of aspect along with the theme vowel.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *t̪-ùɡ-è* | *k-ūɡ* | build |
| *t̪-īw-ò* | *k-íw* | dig |
| *t̪-ūɕ-ē* | *k-úɕ-ín* | light (fire) |
**~~Table 7. T/K marking on Ama verbs~~**
A longer list of examples of this alternation shown in **Table 8** was documented by Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, albeit with a different standard of transcription; they also detected the alternation in Afitti (*tosù/kosìl* “suckle”; *tòsù/kosìl* “light fire”).[^20]
[^20]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 16. By convention, *t* is dental and mid tone is left unmarked in their data. Pertinent to the present alternation, I question the phonemic status of the *w* in *t/kw* alternations before rounded vowels.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *tuɡɛ̀* | *kwò* | build |
| *tàiɔ̀* | *kaì* | chop |
| *tìwò* | *kìù* | dig |
| *tìwò* | *kèù* | fall (of rain) |
| *twɛ̀* | *kwài* | rear, bring up |
| *twèr* | *kweàɡ* | grow [itr]({sc}) |
| *tɔwɛ̀* | *kwɔ̀i* | grow [tr]({sc}) |
| *tuwɛlɛ̀* | *kwɛlì* | guard |
| *tuɡudò* | *kwoɡidì* | mix up, tell lies |
| *toromɔ̀* | *kwòròm* | gnaw |
| *toso* | *kwoʃì* | suck (milk, of baby) |
| *tɔʃìɡ* | *kwɔʃìɡ* | suckle |
| *tosùn* | *kwosùn* | burn [itr]({sc}) |
| *tuʃè* | *kwuʃìn* | light fire |
| *tɛ̀nɛ̀* | *kɛndìr* | climb |
| *tɛnìɡ* | *kɛndɛ̀ɡ* | mount |
**~~Table 8. More verbs with T/K marking~~**
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; ![Blench, this issue](article:blench.md).
[^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.
[^23]: Frajzyngier, “The Plural in Chadic"; Wolff, “Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.”
As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect is supported by semantic affinity between pluractional and progressive. Progressive aspect often entails that a process that is iterated ("is coughing,” "is milking") over the interval concerned.[^24] In Leggbo,[^25] a Niger-Congo language, the progressive form can have a pluractional reading in some verbs, and conversely, verbs that fail to form the regular progressive *C# → CC-i* because they already end in *CCi* can use the pluractional suffix *-azi* instead to express progressive aspect. In Spanish,[^26] a Romance language, there is a periphrastic paradigm between progressive (*estar* “be” + gerund), frequentative pluractional (*andar* “walk” + gerund), and incremental pluractional (*ir* “go” + gerund). The two Spanish pluractionals have been called “pseudo-progressives,” but conversely one could think of progressive aspect as pseudo-pluractional. What is somewhat surprising in Ama is that progressive stems, being morphologically more basic (see **Table 5**), lack any devoted progressive affixes that would have formerly served as pluractional markers.[^27] However, some progressive marking is found in irregular alternations that reveal former pluractional stems.
[^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.
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 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.
## Concretization of Core Clause Constituents
We can also now tie together this finding with the findings on verb syntax in [2](#syntax). Both T/K number marking and relative clause modification have moved out of the noun phrase, and in these comparable changes we can observe a trend towards concretization of noun phrases, with number and clausal information about the participant being expressed later in the clause.
The trend towards concretization also affects the verb itself. T/K and other irregular stem alternations did not maintain their pluractional meaning, as this evolved into a more concrete construal of the predicate over an interval of time as progressive aspect. Since concretization affected the verb as well as noun phrases, it affected the entire core SOV clause, with plurality as well as relative clauses largely deferred to after the verb.
A role for concreteness in grammar was previously proposed in the Pirahã language of Brazil by Everett.[^30] Everett’s approach remains highly controversial,[^31] particularly, I believe, in its attempt to constrain grammar by culture directly in the form of a synchronic “Immediacy of Experience Constraint” on admissible sentence constructions and lexemes in Pirahã. My proposal here is deliberately less ambitious, appealing to concreteness as a diachronic trend in the Nyima branch, not as a constraint on the current synchronic grammar of Ama. Thus, Ama typically attests a separation between a concrete SOV clause and post-verbal modification, but this is not a strict division in the grammar, because it is not impossible to express number or relative clauses within the noun phrase, just infrequent. The concretization process in Ama must also have been specific enough not to have eliminated adjectives from the noun phrase. Ama has adjectives, as shown in examples (8)–(11), which occur as attributive modifiers of nouns in their unmarked form, whereas in predicates they are separated from the subject noun by a clause particle and occur as the complement of the inflecting copula verb *nɛ̄*. Ama adjectives include numerals and quantifiers, despite the limited role of number in the grammar.
[^30]: Everett, “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã.”
[^31]: Nevins, Pesetsky & Rodrigues, “Pirahã Exceptionality"; Everett, “Pirahã Culture and Grammar.”
{{< gloss "(8a)" >}}
{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*tòɽū*,tall|
{r} “tall man”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(8b)" >}}
{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*tòɽū*,tall|*nɛ̄*,be|
{r} “The man is tall.”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(9a)" >}}
{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*ɡɔ̀ɽɛ̀*,old|
{r} “old man”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(9b)" >}}
{g} *kwɛ̄ɪ̄*,man|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*ɡɔ̀ɽɛ̀*,tall|*nɛ̄*,be|
{r} “The man is old.”
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(10a)" >}}
{g} *ŋɔ̄ɽɪ̄*,day|*mūl*,five|
{r} "five days"
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(10a)" >}}
{g} *ŋɔ̄ɽɪ̄*,day|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*mūl*,five|*nɛ̄-ɛ́d̪-ɪ̄*,be-[distr-th]({sc})|
{r} “The days are five.” (“There are five days.”)
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(11a)" >}}
{g} *wàá*,people|*kàdúùŋ*,many|
{r} "many people"
{{< /gloss >}}
{{< gloss "(11b)" >}}
{g} *wàá*,people|*ā*,[decl]({sc})|*kàdúùŋ*,many|*nɛ̄-ɛ́d̪-ɪ̄*,be-[distr-th]({sc})|
{r} “The people are many.” (“There are many people.”)
{{< /gloss >}}
# Ama Verbal affixes {#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.”
## Affix Selection and Order
Some verbal affixes are selected depending on factative or progressive aspect in Ama, just as verb stems are. For example, different suffixes for past tense or for directional movement are selected in the different aspects:
| | Stem | [pst]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *t̪àl* | *t̪àl-ʊ̀n* |
| **[prog]({sc})** | *tām* | *tām-áʊ́* |
**~~Table 9a. Affix selection according to aspect: "eat"~~**
| | Stem | [dir]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄* | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ* |
| **[prog]({sc})** | *dɪ̄ɟ-ɪ̄* | *dīɟ-ír* |
**~~Table 9b. Affix selection according to aspect: "throw"~~**
The same is true of passive and ventive suffixes, but in factative aspect the suffixes replace the theme vowel, so that the affixes are the sole exponent of aspect in many verbs:
| | Stem | [pass]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄* | *ásɪ̄d̪āy-áɪ́* |
| **[prog]({sc})** | *ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄* | *ásɪ̄d̪āy-àɡ* |
**~~Table 10a. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: "paint"~~**
| | Stem | [ven]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *ɪ̄r-ɛ̄* | *ɪ̄r-ɪ́ɪ̄ɡ* |
| **[prog]({sc})** | *ɪ̄r* | *ɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪ɛ̄ɛ̀ɡ* |
**~~Table 10b. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: "send"~~**
In passive and in past, affix order also varies according to aspect with respect to the dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*:
| | Stem | [du pass]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄* | *ásɪ̄d̪āy-áy-ɛ̄n* |
| **[prog]({sc})** | *ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄* | *ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄n-àɡ* |
**~~Table 11a. Affix order variation according to aspect: "paint"~~**
| | Stem | [du pst]({sc}) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *sāŋ-ɔ̄* | *sāŋ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n* |
| **[prog]({sc})** | *sāŋ* | *sāŋ-áw-ɛ̄n* |
**~~Table 11b. Affix order variation according to aspect: "search"~~**
The origin of this affix order variation is revealed by further evidence. Passive marking comes after dual in progressive aspect, whereas past marking comes after dual in factative aspect, but the common feature of both suffixes *-àɡ, -ʊ̀n* placed after the dual is that they both bear low tone. Two more suffixes with low tone, directional *-ɛ̀ɡ ~ -ɡ* (the second allomorph is toneless) and mediocausative *-àw ~ -ɔ̀* (the second allomorph is used word-finally) appear after the dual, but if another low-tone suffix is added after the dual, they appear before the dual instead. Hence, there is only one more affix slot in Ama after the penultimate dual suffix.
| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Gloss** | throw | throw to [du]({sc}) | elicit [du]({sc}) |
| **[fact]({sc})** | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ* | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ* | *kɪ́l-ɛ̄n-ɔ̀* |
| | throw-[th-dir]({sc}) | throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc}) | hear-[du-medcaus]({sc}) |
| **[fact imp]({sc})** | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄-ɪ̀* | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀* | *kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀* |
| | throw-[dir-th-imp]({sc}) | throw-[ven-dir-du-imp]({sc}) | hear-[medcaus-du-imp]({sc}) |
| **[fact pst]({sc})** | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɔ̄-ɔ̀n* | *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n* | *kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n* |
| | throw-[dir-th-pst]({sc}) | throw-[ven-dir-du-pst]({sc}) | hear-[medcaus-du-pst]({sc}) |
**~~Table 12. Inward displacement of suffixes by an imperative or past suffix~~**
Both types of affix alternation in **Tables 11 and 12** involve low-tone suffixes in the final slot. Therefore, the development of all affix order alternations can be attributed to a single historical shift of all low-tone suffixes to the final slot. However, this shift is not realized in verbs containing two low-tone suffixes, because only one of them can go in the final slot. The only final-slot suffix that does not alternate is the imperative *-ɪ̀,* which leaves imperative as original to the final slot. Other suffixes originate from more internal slots to the left of the dual.
As for the origin of affix selection according to aspect, this presumably arose as an extension of the systematic stem selection that occurs for every verb in Nyima languages. This question remains complex, however, because each of the categories affected (past, passive, directional, ventive) will have its own history as to how alternating affixes were acquired in these conditions. One modest proposal is that the NES plural copula *\*aɡ* shown earlier in **Table 6** is the likely source of the progressive passive suffix *-àɡ* in Ama,[^33] via the shift from pluractional to progressive \([3.3](#tk)\), and by a plausible assumption of a transition in passive marking strategy from use of a copula to morphological marking on the verb. This sourcing does not extend to the other passive suffix in factative aspect *-áɪ́,* however, which does not resemble the singular copula *\*an*. Some similar proposals that other progressive suffixes have pluractional origins are made in the course of §4.2 below.
[^33]: The Tama plural copula *àɡ* is likewise listed with low tone in Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 451.
## Pluractional Affixes
Ama has extensions that fall within the family of pluractionals that associate plurality with the verb in different ways, that has emerged as an area of study in language description in recent years.[^34] These extensions are particularly comparable with Nubian and other related languages.
[^34]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs.”
### Distributive Pluractional
Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of an event over time or over participants (*àɪ̀ bā fʊ̄rā mʊ̄l t̪àl-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̀* "I ate until I had eaten five rabbits,” *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄* "The child saw each of the children").[^35] Called “plural” in earlier works, it is remarkable that this category was largely unaffected by the shift of pluractional → progressive analyzed in [3.3](#tk) above,[^36] indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix *-r* used only on verbs with the theme vowel *-a* (*wāɡ-ā* "keep,” distributive *wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r*).[^37] Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix *-tər,*[^38] which corresponds to Ama *-ɪ́d̪* and *-r* combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel *-a,* but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix *-ɪ́d̪* also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,[^39] and a “plurality of action” suffix *-íd* in Midob.[^40] The distributive suffix *-ij* in Mattokki (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]({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.
[^40]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 52.
[^41]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 117. Tone was not recorded.
Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural participant (distributivity implies plurality but is distinct from it),[^42] which distinguishes them from plural-object pluractionals found in many Nubian languages that mark, and are thus obligatory with, plural objects.[^43] Distributives are also characterized by non-occurrence with dual participants (to be non-trivial, distribution requires at least three targets).[^44] The Ama distributive has the first property of optionality in transitive (but not intransitive) verbs, and the second property of non-duality with respect to subjects (but not objects).[^45] This second property is shared by the Afitti suffix *-t(ə)r* which likewise does not occur with dual subjects.[^46] This is shown in Afitti field data below,[^47] where the suffix *-t(ə)r* contrasts in this respect with plural pronominal affixes [1pl]({sc}) *ko-*, [2pl]({sc}) *o-*, and [3pl]({sc}) *-i* which do occur with dual subjects.
[^42]: Corbett, *Number,* p. 116.
[^43]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md)
[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115–116.
[^45]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” 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]({sc}) milk | *ó-ɡaɲál* | you [du]({sc}) milk | *ɡaɲál-i* | they [du]({sc}) milk |
| *kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀* | we [pl]({sc}) milk | *ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀* | you [pl]({sc}) milk | *ɡaɲá-tər-i* | they [pl]({sc}) milk |
**~~Table 13. Afitti pluractional *-t(ə)r* not used with dual subjects~~**
Beyond the Nyima branch, the Temein “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* shares the first property of optionality as it “is by no means always added with plural objects.”[^48] It actually marks a distributive effect of the verb on the object (*ŋɔŋɔt-ɨt̪-ɛ dʉk* "I break the stick into pieces"), as also found with the Mattokki distributive suffix *-ij* (*duɡuːɡ ɡull-ij-ossu* ‘She threw the money here and there’).[^49] Information on non-occurrence with dual subjects is not reported in these languages, but it appears that this is because non-duality is a feature of incremental-distributive marking as found in Nyima, and not distributive-effect marking as found in Temein and Mattokki which can even occur with a singular object, as in the Temein example.
[^48]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187.
[^49]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 118.
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, this issue](article:jakobi.md). 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.
### 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]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md).
[^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]({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.
| [sg]({sc}) | [du]({sc}) | [distr pl]({sc}) | Gloss |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *fá kɪ̄r-ār* | *à-fá kɪ̄r-ār-ɛ̄n* | *à-fá kɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪-ār* | don’t be cutting! |
| *fá sāŋ-ār* | *à-fá sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n* | *à-fá sāŋ-ɪ́d̪-ār* | don’t be searching! |
| *fá túŋ-ār* | *à-fá túŋ-ɛ̄n* | *à-fá túŋ-ɪ́d̪-ār* | don’t be sleeping! |
| *fá tām-ār* | *à-fá tām-ɛ̄n* | *à-fá tām-ɪ́d̪-ār* | don’t be eatingǃ |
**~~Table 14. Ama negative imperative paradigms~~**
Another trilled suffix *-ir* marks motion in progress.[^55] It can be added to a progressive verb (*dɪ̄ɟɪ̄* “is throwing” → *dīɟ-ír* “is throwing (motion in progress)”), but on several motion verbs it is documented as part of the progressive stem, as in the examples in **Table 15** below from Stevenson, Rottland, and Jakobi.[^56] The motion meaning of *-ir* simply agrees with the semantics of the roots, all of which define motion along some schematic scale, so that the aspectual meaning of *-ir* assumes greater significance. Hence, *-ir* approximates a progressive stem formative for this class of verbs. The final example in **Table 15**, due to Kingston,[^57] shows still another trilled suffix *-or* in the progressive stem of a caused motion verb.
[^55]: I defer description of tone on this affix to another time.
[^56]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”
[^57]: This verb appears in unpublished data collected by Abi Kingston.
| [fact]({sc}) | [prog]({sc}) | Gloss |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *bwìɡ* | *buɡìr* | overtake |
| *nɪfɛ̀ɡ* | *nɪfìr* | fall |
| *tɛnɛ̀* | *kɛndìr* | climb |
| *tɪjɛ* | *jeìr* | shoot |
| *ánasa* | *ánasor* | take down |
**~~Table 15. Progressive stems ending in a trill~~**
The trill thus fuses with certain vowels that behave like theme vowels for creating extended progressive stems. As a progressive element, the trill most probably derives from the shift of pluractional → progressive, identifying it as the missing extension of the second Nyima pluractional. We then have an Ama distributive pluractional suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that resembles the Nubian distributive pluractional *\*-(i)ɟ,* and Ama “pseudo-pluractional” progressive suffixes of the shape *-Vr* that resemble the Nubian plural-object pluractional *\*-er*.
### 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]({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.
[^60]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix,” p. 121.
[^61]: Ibid., p. 120.
[^62]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 84, 87.
# Conclusion: Ama as a Matured Northern East Sudanic Language {#5}
Ama verbs show a number of connections to Nubian and other Eastern Sudanic languages in their clause-final syntax, CVC root shape, and certain affixes. However, these connections are more in form than meaning, as the semantics is highly innovative in such notable shifts as plural → pluractional → progressive and reciprocal → dual, and in the drive towards concretization that has moved the expression of both relative clauses and number out of noun phrases to after the verb. In addition, the movement of low-tone suffixes to the final suffix slot, while itself a formal development, has further advanced the morphologization of aspect, so that stem selection, affix selection, and affix order all vary with aspect in Ama verbs. Next to these considerable changes, Ama’s stable distributive pluractional stands out as indicative of a wider Eastern Sudanic verbal category.
An explanation for the innovations found in Ama will not be found in influence from other languages of Sudan, because several of its innovations are extremely rare (adjoined relative clauses, dual verbal number, tone-driven affix order alternation). Instead of an influx of new forms, we have unusual internal evolution of existing forms, implying relative isolation. Ama then exemplifies what both Dahl and Trudgill call “mature phenomena,”[^63] found in languages of isolated small communities where the language has time to evolve based on an abundance of specific shared information in a closed society of intimates. Languages spoken by isolated societies of intimates are more likely to conventionalize complex morphological paradigms, unusual categories, and unusual syntax (maturation), whereas larger, multilingual social networks encourage simpler grammars in the sense of smaller paradigms, and pragmatically well-motivated categories and syntax that are found widely in language (pidginization). Aforementioned verbal features in Ama of dual number, irregular allomorphy (in suppletive roots and in the use of a second distributive suffix), fusion (in affixes like passive and ventive that mark aspect as well), polyfunctionality (of the progressive suffix *-ar* for mirativity or long stem formation), and multiple exponence (of aspect by stem selection, affix selection, and affix order), plus the unusual syntax of adjoined relative clauses, all look like mature language phenomena.[^64]
[^63]: Dahl, *The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity*; Trudgill, *Sociolinguistic Typology*.
[^64]: Maturity could also describe further properties of Ama verbs whose description is in preparation by the author, including further instances of allomorphy, fusion, polyfunctionality, and several kinds of tonal morphology.
Ama nominals, similarly, are known for their relatively rich case systems, but similar case paradigms are found in Nubian and other Northern East Sudanic languages, implying that the case system largely matured at an earlier stage and the resulting complexity is retained in all these languages. Thus, it is the verb system rather than the nominal system that provides evidence of maturation in the Nyima branch in particular.
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]({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.
[^67]: Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains.”
This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification in Ama verbs that supports the idea that language contact occurred. Afitti has pronominal subject markers on the verb, seen earlier in **Table 13**, which are absent in Ama. The pronominal prefixes are not the same in form as personal pronoun words in Afitti ([1sg]({sc}) *oi* but [1sg]({sc}) prefix *kə-*),[^68] therefore they are not incorporated versions of the current pronoun words, but rather predate them. Some of the Afitti pronoun words ([1sg]({sc}) *oi,* [2sg]({sc}) *i*)[^69] are similar to Ama ([1sg]({sc}) *àɪ̀,* [2sg]({sc}) *ī*) and must be retentions from proto-Nyima, hence the older pronominal prefixes must also be retentions in Afitti, but lost in Ama. Their loss in Ama is remarkable against the larger trend of growth in complexity of Ama verbs that we have examined in this paper. The predicted cause of this surprising reversal is pidginization under contact. That is, their loss is evidence that the Ama language was used for inter-group communication, presumably with the Kordofan Nubians, during which (and for which) Ama SOV sentences were simplified by dropping verbal subject marking. If Kordofan Nubians spoke Ama, then borrowing from Ama into Kordofan Nubian is also likely. In verbs, the obvious candidate for borrowing into Kordofan Nubian is the reciprocal suffix *-in*, as this is not attested elsewhere in Nubian.[^70] The following two-step scenario would then account for the facts: Ama was learned and used by Kordofan Nubians, during which Ama dropped verbal subject marking and its reciprocal suffix was borrowed into Kordofan Nubian; next, Ama returned to isolation in which the reciprocal suffix developed its dual function that is unique to Ama today.
[^68]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” pp. 34–38.
[^69]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177.
[^70]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md).
# Abbreviations
* [1, 2, 3]({sc}) – 1st, 2nd, 3rd person;
* [acc]({sc}) – accusative;
* [decl]({sc}) – declarative;
* [dir]({sc}) – directional;
* [distr]({sc}) – distributive;
* [du]({sc}) – dual;
* [ev]({sc}) – event;
* [fact]({sc}) – factative;
* [gen]({sc}) – genitive;
* [imp]({sc}) – imperative;
* [itr]({sc}) – intransitive;
* KN – Kordofan Nubian;
* [loc]({sc}) – locative;
* [med]({sc}) – mediopassive;
* [medcaus]({sc}) – mediocausative;
* [pass]({sc}) – passive;
* [pct]({sc}) – punctual;
* [pf]({sc}) – perfect;
* [pl]({sc}) – plural;
* [prog]({sc}) – progressive;
* [pst]({sc}) – past;
* [ptcp]({sc}) – participle;
* SA – Sudanese Arabic;
* [sg]({sc}) – singular;
* [th]({sc}) – theme;
* [top]({sc}) – topic;
* [tr]({sc}) – transitive;
* [ven]({sc}) – ventive;
* [ver]({sc}) – veridical
# Bibliography
Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed. *![A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.](bib:0975305c-d8e8-4fd0-935f-cc2f17735109)* PhD Thesis. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1988.
Bryan, Margaret A. ![“The T/K languages: A New Substratum.”](bib:59783b11-e5ab-4942-a480-05cafb1ed192) *Africa* 29 (1959): pp. 1–21.
Comfort, Jade. ![“Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).”](bib:298e5b27-ae92-49e6-9236-96b221fe5109) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D61110032](https://doi.org/10.5070/D61110032).
Corbett, Greville G. *![Number.](bib:13ccbea7-ad97-4d2d-8923-62c32e1398fc)* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Dahl, Östen. *![The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity.](bib:bf1cc029-2f59-46ec-97bf-ef1e4c1b10f3)* Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. ![“Africa’s Verb-Final Languages.”](bib:aee4594a-9b75-4701-8eb4-1c4369959f43) In *A Linguistic Geography of Africa,* edited by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: pp. 272–308.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit. ![“Introduction.”](bib:2f9118b3-3098-4bea-a8fd-7a3f4778a51b) 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.”](bib:9aa841fc-4e33-49af-b68f-3d6b07a50feb) *Current Anthropology* 46, no. 4 (2005): pp. 621–646. [doi]({sc}): [10.1086/431525](https://doi.org/10.1086/431525).
Everett, Daniel. ![“Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms.”](bib:a6ed8335-15b0-4cc0-a4a8-033d31759607) *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 405–442. [doi]({sc}): [10.5070/D61110032](https://doi.org/10.1086/431525).
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. ![“The Plural in Chadic.”](bib:31b968cd-5292-4ebb-9263-a73b65472438) In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56.
Gilley, Leoma G. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:3ea12960-5689-4e29-8189-d13a5c10692c) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522.
Greenberg, Joseph. *![The Languages of Africa.](bib:a107ca3b-6b11-49b2-bed3-9b246c811eec)* Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963.
Heine, Bernd & Rainer Voßen. “Sprachtypologie.” In *Die Sprachen Afrikas,* edited by Bernd Heine, Thilo Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981: pp. 407–444.
Hyman, Larry & Imelda Udoh. ![“Progressive Formation in Leggbo.”](bib:0b3dc263-a64e-405a-b4a5-7cc0ed42e14d) 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.”](bib:e4d9b5eb-152d-407b-898c-2cfe81f0b2f4) 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.”](bib:2f9738c0-fba1-4379-a723-408a79233006) In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87–92.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. *![Stativity and the Progressive.](bib:7de59d8d-767b-4120-9ddf-58231235e4d0)* Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984.
Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky & Cilene Rodrigues. ![“Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment.”](bib:a5d102cb-e5e2-4008-8d38-8cd66e210770) *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 355–404.
Newman, Paul. ![“Pluractional Verbs: An Overview.”](bib:4d53a5a1-888f-4cd6-9698-d4789d04dc13) 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.”](bib:ffbeac3c-d7f9-4e76-8d57-aac8a84901f3) 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.”](bib:53a9eb31-bc2f-453e-a07a-6995c48191ff) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75–94.
Norton, Russell. ![“The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.”](bib:dee61438-0697-4473-925e-1cb4842b23a8) 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.](bib:c191b60d-ae64-4eee-9c72-e71b7ae987b5)* Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi. ![“Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.”](bib:ea30948a-72e9-4be8-8cf9-81a4197c9737) *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269.
Smits, Heleen. *![A Grammar of Lumun: A Kordofanian Language of Sudan, Vol. 2](bib:869450df-06cd-4924-86b4-451400656a73)* 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 Nyimaŋ.”](bib:36cfcac0-c85c-4be3-88e8-ffcb13cb3659) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:b27f061e-960a-46d5-b5a6-474f11229b79) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
Stevenson, Roland. *![Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).](bib:d5e5f608-2318-41d7-94bc-7108c1980bae)* Unpublished typescript, 1938.
Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. ![“The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”](bib:af0fd458-63b2-4030-9839-c4e12d6d90ee) *Afrikanistiche Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64.
Stirtz, Timothy. *![A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan.](bib:96c81a2c-85e4-4912-9ff3-e92dafc3385e)* 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.”](bib:71c3d8f6-db75-4c1b-83ac-61aab91b1ab6) *Studies in African Linguistics* 38, no. 1 (2009): pp. 35–52.
Voogt, Alex de. ![“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.”](bib:afaccfe5-e788-452d-924c-2cc6d279bc19) *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).
Waag, Christine. *![The Fur Verb and Its Context.](bib:33b6d9ac-db26-4138-9286-cc3a6220d892)* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2010.
Welmers, William E. *![African Language Structures.](bib:d06811d1-f9a3-4134-94c1-8eb5e712ea95)* Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
Werner, Roland. *![Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nubian).](bib:a834aff7-cd58-4268-b1cb-2fcc3f48e6e2)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
Wolff, Ekkehard. ![“Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.”](bib:1cc278ad-be20-44d5-8db4-d795c39a83ed) In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 199–233.

172
content/article/obituary_pagoulatos.md
View file

@ -1,172 +0,0 @@
---
title: "An Obituary for George Pagoulatos"
authors: ["alexandrostsakos.md"]
abstract:
keywords: ["Acropole Hotel", "Khartoum", "Greeks in Sudan", "Pagoulatos"]
---
The year 2022 marks a jubilee for Nubian studies. Fifty years ago, the
International Society for Nubian Studies (ISNS) was founded during the
first International Conference for Nubian Studies (ICNS). As then, this
year's ICNS took place in Warsaw, the headquarters of the study of---at
least---medieval, or Christian, Nubia. For the ISNS, the jubilee was
also, in many ways, a year of reflection on the deeds of the past and
the pioneers who founded and promoted the field of Nubiology---a
discipline born in the context of the 1972 ICNS in Warsaw. What could
not escape the attention of anyone present at this year's ICNS was the
fact that so many of these pioneers were absent. From the group involved
in the Aswan High Dam Campaigns, for example, only Stefan Jakobielski
was present. Many may have been afraid of the pandemic; some are no
longer active; others have left this world. The list of the latter is
long. The names of Bill Adams, Hans-Åke Nördström, László Török, and
Stefan Wenig perhaps suffice to underline the weight of the moment the
ISNS commemorated their departure. Commemorating late colleagues at the
ICNS is not a new practice. This year, however, there was a novelty in
the necrology. The participants were reminded of the death of a person
who, though not a scholar, was the warmest supporter and most efficient
facilitator of the fieldwork of foreign missions to Sudan. This person
is none other than George Pagoulatos, who passed away in June 2022. He
was the pillar of the Acropole Hotel, home away from home for so many of
us, researchers and travelers passing through Khartoum or expatriates
living there.
I met George on the first day of my very first visit to Khartoum in
1994. I had been invited by one of the thousands of Greek families that
have lived in Sudan since the nineteenth century, when the first Greeks
appeared in the Middle Nile in modern times, following the armies of
Mohamed Ali, the governor of Egypt born in Kavala in modern-day Greece.
Two regions of modern-day Greece contributed the most to the diaspora
population of Sudan: the eastern Aegean islands, thanks to the boat
connection between Istanbul and Egypt passing by these islands, and the
Ionian islands, thanks to their long-standing links with
Europe---especially the British Empire, ruler of the islands between
1809 and 1862. The island of Cephalonia played a particular role in
these emigrations, as testified by the oldest known textual source
produced by a Greek of Sudan, namely the diary of Angelos Kapatos,
allegedly the most important merchant of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. And among
the Cephalonians of Sudan, the Pagoulatos family stands out.
The Pagoulatos family achieved renown in the second half of the
twentieth century. During World War II, Panaghis Pagoulatos left
Cephalonia and settled in Egypt, where he met his wife Flora, a member
of the Greek diaspora of Alexandria. There, their first son, Thanassis,
was born. The family soon settled in Khartoum, where Panaghis was
employed by the British government, working as a private accountant in
the afternoons to complement the family's income. With his first
capital, he opened a night club just opposite the governor's house, and
in 1952, he founded the Acropole Hotel on the corner of Zubeir Pasha
Street (no. 52) and Babikr Badr Street, right behind Jamhuria Street,
Khartoum's central avenue. The first establishment had only ten rooms.
Forty more were added in 1954, when a building across the street was
annexed to the original premises. Panaghis and Flora ran the hotel until
the founder's death in 1967. Flora was subsequently assisted by
Thanassis. His younger brothers, George and Gerasimos (Makis), soon
followed suit. They were both born in Khartoum---Makis at the Acropole
itself.
The hotel's central position defined its clientele. First, it was mainly
merchants. Then, with the political and humanitarian calamities
befalling the country, its clientele consisted mainly of employees of
the United Nations and several nongovernmental organizations. It was
perhaps due to these connections that on May 15, 1988, one of the two
Acropole Hotel buildings became the target of a terrorist attack that
killed seven people and seriously injured another twenty-two. This was
not the only time that the fate of the hotel and the Pagoulatos family
went hand in hand with the sociopolitical developments in Sudan. In
1983, the Sharia law imposed by Gaafar Nimeiry's regime prohibited
alcoholic beverages, leading to the loss of a crucial source of income
for many Greeks, including the Pagoulatos family, then distributors of
Amstel beer in Sudan.
In the 1990s, however, the hotel gained a new clientele: archaeologists.
Thanks to the family's forty years of business experience and his unique
talent in socializing, George Pagoulatos became the go-to person for
addressing all sorts of administrative and logistic challenges that the
foreign missions were facing in a country that was not exactly an easy
place to travel, work, and conduct fieldwork. As George stated in 2016,
"Some archaeologists have been coming to our hotel for over twenty
years. Having solved various problems together, we have developed strong
bonds that go beyond business relationships. We are like a family." This
feeling of belonging to this family was almost contagious for everyone
approaching George and the hearth of the Acropole.
This was also my feeling when I arrived at the hotel's foyer in 1994 and
was offered a splendidly refreshing "nous-nous" (a drink consisting of
50% karkadeh and 50% lemon juice)---one of the many reasons to seek
shelter from Khartoum's suffocating heat in the Acropole, but surely not
the most important one. As soon as we were introduced to each other,
George showed an earnest interest in this young archaeologist from his
home country---the first to ever set foot in Sudan, as he exclaimed in
delight. At that moment, any doubts I had about dedicating my career to
studying the past of Sudan and Nubia were dispelled. But George's
involvement in the field of Sudanese archaeology was not limited to
formalities and kindness. He introduced me to many archaeologists
staying at the Acropole who were willing to share their experiences with
a novice in the field. I recall how he managed to relieve my stress with
his kind words and mindful observations during a dinner he planned with
professors returning from Kerma, the mythical to me capital of Bronze
Age Sudan; how, when I moved to Sudan, he invited me to the Acropole
time and again to meet colleagues who had an interest in or questions
about Greco-Roman topics to which I could provide some feedback. It is
no little thing that after such a call, I met my mentor in medieval
Nubian textual studies, and later friend and long-standing collaborator,
Professor Adam [Ł]{.smallcaps}ajtar from the University of Warsaw. I
trust that many will smile reading about my memories, having been
recipients of George's love for our work themselves.
George's kindness and help extended far beyond the premises of the
Acropole. He had deep respect for the efforts of the National
Corporation of Antiquities and Museums to protect and promote the
country's archaeological heritage. His material and diplomatic
assistance also allowed him to facilitate administrative procedures for
all researchers active in Sudanese archaeology. Beyond archaeology and
the National Museum, his interest and respect extended to all sister
disciplines and museums. For example, he personally introduced me to the
director of the Ethno-folkloristic Museum in the early 1990s, hoping for
some broadening of the museum's scope to include traditions shared
between Greeks and the Sudanese through their coexistence in modern
Sudan, as well as during Ottoman times.
George Pagoulatos was a man of culture. He knew and loved to talk about
literature and music. I remember how actively he engaged with the events
organized at "Ergamenis," the Greek Community of Khartoum Cultural
Center. He was especially supportive both before and during the concert
of the Samandalyat, a group of eleven Sudanese women playing the violin
under the guidance of Professor Leila Pastawi on the keyboard
instrument. When the group performed at the premises of "Ergamenis," he
also showed his generosity and humbleness by offering and serving
himself drinks to more than a hundred people at the concert's
intermission, always with a smile for everyone.
The early 2000s, when I was living in Sudan, were perhaps some of the
most prosperous years for the country thanks not only to the discovery
of oil but also to the constant flow of money that supported the work of
the numerous NGOs present in the country due to the humanitarian crises
in all the peripheries controlled by Khartoum. The country felt somewhat
more open to foreigners, and tourists started coming in larger numbers.
The Acropole Hotel became a hub for this type of visitors too, and
George's name was known to all involved in the tourism industry.
However, whenever one praised him for his services, efficiency, and
warmth, he always replied on behalf of the entire family---brothers,
wives, and children---who all contributed to running the hotel and
achieving such quality standards in an environment like Khartoum, thus
having equal shares in the hotel's success and the family's fame.
It is no surprise that the Acropole Hotel has become the heart of the
Greek diaspora in Sudan even officially, since after the closure of the
Greek Embassy in Khartoum, Makis Pagoulatos took up the responsibility
of running the Consulate of Greece in Khartoum from the Acropole's
office. I am sure that he does this with pride and confidence, inspired
by the image of his father on the wall and the memory of his brother in
every corner of the hotel.
Although George's memory cannot be contained in words, I could not but
express my sadness for his departure, my respect for his person, and my
love for this exceptional friend in this short text. If people who knew
George Pagoulatos are touched by this text or are inspired to reflect on
what makes life in Khartoum meaningful, the presence of researchers in
Sudan vital, and the future of the country---hopefully---better, then I
trust that we can all see him smiling from his office or from the
entrance of the Acropole Hotel, wishing us a good journey ahead.

1298
content/article/rilly.md
View file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

381
content/article/starostin.md
View file

@ -1,381 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages"
authors: ["georgestarostin.md"]
abstract: "The paper offers a critical analysis of the proposal to dismantle the genetic unity of the so-called Nile-Nubian languages by positioning one of its former constituents, the Nobiin language, as the earliest offshoot from the Common Nubian stem. Combining straightforward lexicostatistical methodology with more scrupulous etymological analysis of the material, I argue that the evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Nobiin is the earliest offshoot may and, in fact, should rather be interpreted as evidence for a strong lexical substrate in Nobiin, accounting for its accelerated rate of change in comparison to the closely related Kenuzi–Dongolawi (Mattokki–Andaandi) cluster."
keywords: ["comparative linguistics", "Nilo-Saharan", "glottochronology", "lexicostatistics", "Nubian", "West Nilotic"]
---
# Introduction
Although there has never been any serious disagreement on which languages constitute the Nubian family, its internal classification has been continuously refined and revised, due to such factors as the overall complexity of the processes of linguistic divergence and convergence in the "Sudanic" area of Africa; constant influx of new data that forces scholars to reevaluate former assumptions; and lack of scholarly agreement on what types of data provide the best arguments for language classification.
Traditionally, four main units have been recognized within Nubian[^1]:
* Nile-Nubian, consisting of the closely related Kenuzi–Dongolawi (Mattokki–Andaandi) dialect cluster and the somewhat more distant Nobiin (= Fadidja–Mahas) cluster;
* Kordofan Nubian, or Hill Nubian, consisting of numerous (and generally poorly studied, although the situation has significantly improved in the past decade) languages such as Dilling, Karko, Wali, Kadaru, etc.;
* Birgid (Birked, Birged), now-extinct , formerly spoken in Darfur;
* Midob (Meidob), also in Darfur.
This is, for instance, the default classification model adopted in Joseph Greenbergʼs general classification of the languages of Africa,[^2] and for a long time it was accepted in almost every piece of research on the history of Nubian languages.
[^1]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 85.
[^2]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 84.
More recently, however, an important and challenging hypothesis on a re-classification of Nubian has been advanced by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst.[^3] Having conducted a detailed lexicostatistical study of a representative batch of Nubian lects, she made the important observation that, while the percentage of common matches between the two main components of Nile-Nubian is indeed very high (70%), Kenuzi–Dongolawi consistently shows a much higher percentage in common with the other three branches of Nubian than Nobiin (**Table 1**).
[^3]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”; Bechhaus-Gerst, *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal*; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin*.
| | Midob | Birgid | Kadaru | Debri | Dilling | K/D |
| --- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **K/D** | 54% | 48% | 58% | 57% | 58% | |
| **Nobiin** | 40% | 37% | 43% | 41% | 43% | 70% |
**~~Table 1. Part of the lexicostatistical matrix for Nubian[^t1]~~**
[^t1]: Bechhaus-Gerst, *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal,* p. 88.
In Bechhaus-Gerstʼs view, such a discrepancy could only be interpreted as evidence of Kenuzi–Dongolawi and Nobiin not sharing an intermediate common "Nile-Nubian" ancestor (if they did share one, its modern descendants should be expected to have more or less the same percentages of matches with the other Nubian subgroups). Instead, she proposed independent lines of development for the two dialect clusters, positioning Nobiin as not just a separate branch of Nubian, but actually the earliest segregating branch of Nubian. Consequently, in her standard historical scenario described at length in two monographs, there was not one, but two separate migrations into the Nile Valley from the original Nubian homeland (somewhere in South Kordofan/Darfur) — one approximately around 1,500 BCE (the ancestors of modern Nobiin-speaking people), and one around the beginning of the Common Era (speakers of Kenuzi–Dongolawi). As for the multiple exclusive similarities between Nobiin and Kenuzi–Dongolawi, these were explained away as results of "intensive language contact.”[^4] The lexicostatistical evidence was further supported by the analysis of certain phonetic and grammatical peculiarities of Nobiin that separate it from Kenuzi–Dongolawi; however, as of today it is the lexical specificity of Nobiin that remains at the core of the argument.
[^4]: Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 22.
Bechhaus-Gerstʼs classificatory model, with its important implications not only for the history of Nubian peoples, but also for the theoretical and methodological development of historical and areal linguistics in general, remains somewhat controversial. While it has been embraced in the recent editions of such influential online language catalogs as [Ethnologue](https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/nubian) and [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251) and is often quoted as an important example of convergent linguistic processes in Africa,[^5] specialists in the field often remain undecided,[^6] and it is concluded in the most recent handbook on African linguistics that "the internal classification of Nubian remains unclear.”[^7] One of the most vocal opponents of the new model is Claude Rilly, whose research on the reconstruction of Proto-Nubian (in conjunction with his work on the historical relations and genetic affiliation of Meroitic) and investigation into Bechhaus-Gerstʼs evidence has led him to an even stronger endorsement of the Nile-Nubian hypothesis than ever before.[^8]
[^5]: E.g., Heine & Kuteva, "Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.”
[^6]: E.g., Jakobi, "The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nu­bian Consonants.”
[^7]: Güldemann, "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa,” p. 283.
[^8]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 211–288; Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan,” pp. 1180–1183. We will return to Rillyʼs arguments in the final section of this paper.
While in theory there is nothing impossible about the historical scenario suggested by Bechhaus-Gerst, in practice the idea that language A, rather distantly related to language B, could undergo a serious convergent development over an approximately 1,000-year long period (from the supposed migration of Kenuzi–Dongolawi into the Nile Valley and up to the attestation of the first texts in Old Nubian, which already share most of the important features of modern Nobiin), to the point where language A can easily be misclassified even by specialists as belonging to the same group as language B, seems rather far-fetched. At the very least, it would seem to make perfect sense, before adopting it wholeheartedly, to look for alternate solutions that might yield a more satisfactory explanation to the odd deviations found in the data.
Let us look again more closely (**Table 2**) at the lexicostatistical evidence, reducing it, for the sake of simple clarity, to percentages of matches observed in a "triangle" consisting of Kenuzi–Dongolawi, Nobiin, and one other Nubian language that is universally recognized as belonging to a very distinct and specific subbranch of the family — Midob. Comparative data are given from the older study by Bechhaus-Gerst and my own, more recent examination of the basic lexicon evidence.[^9]
[^9]: Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 24–95.
| | Nobiin | Midob |
| --- | :--- | :--- |
| **K/D** | 70% | 54% |
| **Nobiin** | | 40% |
**~~Table 2a. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob \(Bechhaus-Gerst\)[^t2a]~~**
| | Nobiin | Midob |
| --- | :--- | :--- |
| **K/D** | 66% | 57% |
| **Nobiin** | | 51% |
**~~Table 2b. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob \(Starostin\)[^t2b]~~**
[^t2a]: Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”
[^t2b]: Starostin, *Языки Африки*.
The significant differences in figures between two instances of lexicostatistical calculations are explained by a number of factors (slightly divergent Swadesh-type lists; different etymologizations of several items on the list; exclusion of transparent recent loans from Arabic in Starostinʼs model). Nevertheless, the obvious problem does not go away in the second model: Midob clearly shares a significantly larger number of cognates with K/D than with Nobiin — a fact that directly contradicts the K/D–Nobiin proximity on the Nubian phylogenetic tree. The situation remains the same if we substitute Midob with any other non-Nile-Nubian language, such as Birgid or any of the multiple Hill Nubian idioms.
The important thing is that there are actually two possible reasons for this discrepancy in the lexicostatistical matrix. One, endorsed by Bechhaus-Gerst, is that the K/D–Nobiin number is incorrectly increased by the addition of a large number of items that have not been inherited from a common ancestor, but actually borrowed from Nobiin into K/D. An alternate scenario, however, is that the active recipient was Nobiin, except that the donor was not K/D — rather, a certain percentage of Nobiin basic lexicon could have been borrowed from a third, possibly unidentified source, over a relatively short period of time, which resulted in lowering the percentage of Nobiin matches with *all* other Nubian languages.
Thus, for instance, if we assume (or, better still, somehow manage to prove) that Nobiin borrowed 6% of the Swadesh wordlist (i.e., 6 words on the 100-item list) from this third source, exclusion of these words from lexicostatistical calculation would generally normalize the matrix, increasing the overall percentage for the K/D–Nobiin and Nobiin–Midob pairs, but not for the K/D–Midob pair.
The tricky part in investigating this situation is determining the status of those Nobiin words on the Swadesh list that it does not share with K/D. If the phylogenetic structure of the entire Nubian group is such that Nobiin represents the very first branch to be split off from the main body of the tree, as in Bechhaus-Gerstʼs model (**fig. 1**), then we would expect a certain portion of the Swadesh wordlist in Nobiin to be represented by the following two groups of words:
* archaic Nobiin retentions that have been preserved in their original meaning in that subgroup only, replaced by innovations in the intermediate common ancestor of Midob, Birgid, K/D, and Hill Nubian;
* conversely, more recent Nobiin innovations that took place after the original separation of Nobiin; in this case, the Nobiin equivalent of the Swadesh meaning would also be opposed to the form reconstructible for the common ancestor of the remaining four branches, but would not reflect the original Proto-Nubian situation.
![The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst](../static/images/bechhaus.png "The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst")
**~~Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst~~**
Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [III](#iii) of the list below), but how can we distinguish retentions from innovations? If the word in question has no etymological cognates in any other Nubian language, then in most cases such a distinction is impossible.[^10] However, if the retention or innovation in question was not accompanied by the total elimination of the root morpheme, but rather involved a semantic shift, then investigating the situation from an etymo­logical point of view may shed some significant light on the matter. In general, the more lexico­statistical discrepancies we find between Nobiin and the rest of Nubian where the Nobiin item has a Common Nubian etymology, the better the case for the "early separation of Nobiin" hypothesis; the more "strange" words we find in Nobiin whose etymological parallels in the other Nubian languages are highly questionable or non-existent, the stronger the case for the "pre-Nobiin substrate" hypothesis.
[^10]: One possible argument in this case would be to rely on data from external comparison. Thus, if we agree that Nubian belongs to the Northern branch of the Eastern Sudanic family, with the Nara language and the Taman group as its closest relatives (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Starostin, *Языки Африки*), then, in those cases where Nobiin data is opposed to the data of all other Nubian languages, it is the word that finds better etymological parallels in Nara and Tama that should be logically regarded as the Proto-Nubian equivalent. However, in order to avoid circularity or the additional problems that one runs into while investigating chronologically distant language relationship, I intentionally restrict the subject matter of this paper to internal Nubian data only.
In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed etymological analysis of the entire 100-item Swadesh wordlist for modern Nobiin.[^11] The lexical items are classified into three groups:
[^11]: Reasons of volume, unfortunately, do not allow to go into sufficient details on many of the more complicated cases. A subset of 50 words, representing the most stable (on average) Swadesh items, has been analyzed in detail and published (in Russian) in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 224–295. A complete 100-item wordlist reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, with detailed notes on phonetics, semantics, and distribution, is scheduled to be added to the already available annotated 100-item wordlists for ten Nubian languages, published as part of [The Global Lexicostatistical Database](http://starling.rinet.ru/new100).
* I. Lexicostatistical matches (i.e., cases where the exact same lexical root is preserved in the exact same Swadesh meaning, without semantic shifts) between Nobiin and K/D. These are further divided into subcategories I.1: common Nubian roots, also found in the same meaning in all or some other branches of Nubian beyond Nile-Nubian; and I.2: exclusive isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D that may be either retentions from Proto-Nubian, lost in all other branches, or Nile-Nubian innovations replacing more archaic words. In either case, these data have no bearing on the issue of Nobiinʼs uniqueness (although isoglosses in I.2 may be used to strengthen the case for Nile-Nubian).
* II. Lexicostatistical matches between Nobiin and other Nubian branches (Midob, Birgid, Hill Nubian) that exclude K/D. Upon first sight, such isoglosses might seem to weaken the Nile-Nubian connection, but in reality they are not highly significant, as the K/D equivalents of the respective meanings may simply represent recent lexical innovations that took place already after the split of Nile-Nubian.
* III. Nobiin-exclusive lexicostatistical items that have a common Nubian etymology (III.1) or do not have any parallels in any of the other attested Nubian languages (III.2). This is the most significant group of cases, with items in subgroup III.1 testifying in favor of the early separation hypothesis (particularly if the lexicostatistical meaning in Nobiin can be shown to be archaic), and items in subgroup III.2 favoring the substrate explanation. Needless to say, it is the items in this group that will be receiving the most extensive commentary.[^12]
[^12]: Note on the data sources: for reasons of volume, I do not include all available data in the etymologies. Nobiin (N) forms are quoted based on Werner's *Grammatik des Nobiin*; if the word is missing from Wernerʼs relatively short glossary, additional forms may be drawn upon from either older sources, such as Lepsius's *Nubische Grammatik*, or newer ones, e.g., Khalil's *Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache* (unfortunately, Khalilʼs dictionary is unusable as a lexicostatistical source due to its unwarranted omission of Arabic borrowings and conflation of various early sources). The ancient forms of Old Nubian (ON) are taken from Gerald Browneʼs *Old Nubian Dictionary.*
Data on the other languages are taken from the most comprehensive published dictionaries, vocabularies, and/or wordlists and are quoted as follows: Kenuzi (K) — Hofmann, *Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis*; Dongolawi (D) — Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian*; Midob (M) — Werner, *Tìdn-áal*; Birgid (B) — Thelwall, "A Birgid Vocabulary List”; Dilling (Dl) — Kauczor, *Die Bergnubische Sprache*. Hill Nubian data other than Dilling are used sparingly, only when it is necessary to specify the distribution of a given item; occasional forms from such languages as Kadaru, Debri, Karko, and Wali are quoted from wordlists published in Thelwall, "Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka" and Krell, *Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguisyic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups*.
Proto-Nubian forms are largely based on the system of correspondences that was originally laid out in Marianne Bechhaus-Gerstʼs reconstruction of Proto-Nubian phonology in "Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen,” but with a number of emendations introduced in Starostin, *Языки Африки*. Since this study is more concerned with issues of cognate distribution than those of phonological reconstruction and phonetic interpretation, I will refrain from reproducing full tables of phonetic correspondences, but brief notes on peculiarities of reflexes of certain PN phonemes in certain Nubian languages will be given for those cases where etymological cognacy is not obvious or is disputable from the standard viewpoint of the neogrammarian paradigm.
# 100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data
## I. Nobiin/Kenuzi–Dongolawi Isoglosses
### I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses {#i1}
* “ashes”: N *ùbúr-tí*, K/D *ubur-ti* (= M *úfù-dì*, B *ubur-ti*, etc.).
* “belly”: N *tùː*, K/D *tuː* (= M *tə̀ː*, B *tuː*, etc.).
* “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]
* “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.
* “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.).
* “green”: N *déssí*, K *desse ~ dosse*, D *dɛssɛ* (= M *tèssé*, B *teːze*, Dl *teɟe*).
* “hand”: N *èd-dì* (= ON *ey-*), K *iː*, D *ɪː* (= M *ə̀ssì*, B *essi*, Dl *iši*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*əsi ~ \*əsi-ti*.
* “head”: N *ùr*, K/D *ur* (= M *òr*, B *úr*, Dl *or*, etc.).
* “heart”: N *áy* (= ON *ai-l-*), K/D *aː* (= B *ai-di*, Dl *a-l*, etc.).
* “horn”: N *nìːšì*, K *nišši*, D *nɪšši* (= M *kə́ːcí*, B *ŋis-ti*, D *dɔ-ti*). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ŋəɟi*.[^horn]
* “I”: N *ày*, K/D *ay* (= M *ə́y*, Dl *ɛ*, etc.).
* “kill”: N *fáːy-èːr*, K *beː*, D *bɛː* (= M *pé-r-*, B *fi-laːle*).
* “knee”: N *kúr-tí*, K *kur-ti*, D *kur-tɪ* (= M *ùrú-d*, B *kur-ti*, etc.).
* “know”: N *ìrbé-èr* (= ON *i- ~ ia-r- ~ ie-r-*), K *iy-ir* (= M *ìːyá-*, D *i-er-*). ◊ The stem in modern Nobiin seems to be an extended form of the original stem, though the nature of the extension is not quite clear.
* “long”: N *nàssí*, K *nosso*, D *noso* (= M *tàssè*, B *nizze*, Dl *dɔɟi*, etc.). ◊ Goes back to PN *\*nossi*, although vocalic correspondences are somewhat irregular.
* “louse”: N *issi*, K *issi*, D *ɪssɪ* (= M *ìːdì*, Dl *iti-d*, etc.).
* “moon”: N *ùn-áttí*, K *un-atti ~ an-atti*, D *un-attɪ* (= Dl *nɔn-ti*, Wali *ūm-tù* etc.). ◊ The Nile-Nubian root is *\*un-*; there are some problems with Hill Nubian forms, such as explaining the initial *n-* in Dl, but overall, there is no reason to doubt the common origin of all these items.
* “neck”: N *íyyí*, K *eyye*, D *ɛyyɛ* (= Kadaru *eː*). ◊ Not clear if M *éːr* “neck” also belongs here (with a suffix?), but the Kadaru form is sufficient by itself to trace the word back to PN *\*eyi*.
* “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]
* “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.
* 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]
* “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)*.
[^13]: Bechhaus-Gerst, "Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 94 lists this as one of two examples illustrating the alleged archaicity of Old Nubian and Nobiin in retaining original PN *\*g-*, together with ON *gouwi* "shield.” However, in both of these cases K/D also show *k-* (cf. K/D *karu* "shield”), which goes against regular correspondences for PN *\*g-* (which should yield K/D *g-*, see "red”), meaning that it is Nobiin and not the other languages that actually have an innovation here.
[^horn]: Reconstruction somewhat uncertain, but initial *\*ŋ-* is fairly clearly indicated by the correspondences; see detailed discussion in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 56–57.
[^14]: Bechhaus-Gerst, "Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 93 counts this as an additional slice of evidence for early separation of N, but since this is an innovation rather than an archaism, there are no arguments to assert that the innovation did not take place recently (already after the separation of N from K/D).
[^sun]: Hofmann, *Material für eine Meroitische Gram­ma­tik,* 86.
[^tongue]: See the detailed discussion on this phonetically unusual root in Starostin, *Языки Африки,* p. 80.
[^15]: Bell, "Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language,” p. 10.
### I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses {#i2}
* “all”: N *màlléː*, K *malleː*, D *mallɛ*.
* “big”: N *dàwwí*, K/D *duː-l*.
* “burn”: N *ɟùgé-èr*, K/D *ɟug*.
* “egg”: N *kúmbúː*, D *kumbu*. ◊ Replaced in K by the recent compound innovation *gas-katti* (where the first root probably = *gaːsi* “heavy, hard, rough”), but clearly reconstructible for Nile-Nubian on the whole.
* “feather”: N *šipir*,[^feather] D *sɪbɪr*.
* “leaf”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug*. ◊ Same word as “ear.”
* “man”: N *ògɟí-l*, K *ogiɟ*, D *ogɪɟ*.
* “many”: N *díyyí*, K *dig-riː*, D *díyyí*. ◊ In ON usually attested as *diː-*, once as *dig-* (reflecting dialectal differences between N and K/D).
* “nose”: N *sòrìŋ*, K *sorin*, D *sorɪɲ*.
* “smoke”: N *túllí*, D *tulla*. ◊ This may be a recent innovation in both languages; cf. the morphological discrepancy, the fact that the stem in N is a better match for K *tulli* “chewing tobacco,” and the lack of attestation in ON. Obvious similarity with Nuer *toːl*, Dinka *tol* “smoke” suggests an old areal isogloss.
* “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.”
[^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.
## II. Nobiin / Non-K/D Isoglosses
### 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.
* “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.”
### II.2. Potential Synonymy in the Protolanguage
* “come”: *kí-ìl* (= M *ìː-*, B *ki*). ◊ The K/D equivalent is *taː* “to come,” related to Hill Nubian forms (Dl *ta*, Debri *tɔ-rɛ*, Kadaru *ti-ri*, etc.). Old Nubian texts feature numerous instances of both *ki-* and *ta-* in the meaning “to come,” with the semantic difference between them poorly under­stood; in any case, it is likely that both *\*ki-* and *\*ta-* have to be reconstructed for PN as synonyms (possibly suppletives), with subsequent simplification in daughter branches, meaning that neither the situation in Nobiin nor in K/D may be regarded as a straightforward innovation.
## III. Nobiin-exclusive Items {#iii}
### 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; butter”; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M *ə̀ggə́r*, B *igir*, Dl *ogor*, etc.).
* (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” > Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here).
* “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*”).
* “we”: N *ù:* (= ON *u-*). ◊ ON has two [1pl]({sc}) pronouns: *u-* and *e-r-*, the distinction between which is still a matter of debate; Browne, Werner, and others have suggested an old differentiation along the lines of inclusivity, but there is no general consensus on which of the two pronouns may have been inclusive and which one was exclusive. In any case, the two forms are in complementary distribution in modern Nile-Nubian languages: N only has *ùː*, K/D only have *a-r-*. On the external level, K/D forms are better supported (cf. M. *àː-dí*, B *a-di*), but forms cognate with N *ùː* are also occasionally found in Hill Nubian, e.g., Wali *ʊ̌ʔ*.[^we] Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that *ùː* may well be a PN archaism retained in N.
[^earth]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 357.
[^earth2]: The meanings “sand; dust” are also indicated as primary for Nobiin *iskid ~ iskit* in Khalil, *Wörterbuch der nubischen Spra­che,* p. 48.
[^we]: Krell, *Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups*, p. 40.
### III.2. Nobiin-exclusive Items without a Nubian Etymology {#iii2}
* “dog”: N *múg* (= ON *mug-*). ◊ Not related to PN *\*bəl* (K *wel*, D *wɛl*, M *pə̀ːl*, B *mɛl*, DL *bol*, etc.); no parallels in other Nubian languages.
* “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 satisfaction”) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D *kal* < PN *\*kɔl* has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl *kol*, M *ə̀l-* id. Regardless of etymologization, N *kàb-* is clearly innovative.
* “fat”: N *sìlèː*. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages.
* “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/ready”). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *\*merid-* (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure.
* (?) “good”: N *màs.* ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent *gèn* (= ON *gen-*), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better”), is clearly cognate with D *gɛn* “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl *ken*, Debri *kɛŋ* “good,” etc., going back to PN *\*gen-*. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to [I.1](#i1).
* “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.
* “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-*.
* “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.
* “white”: N *nùlù* (= ON *nulu-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “white” is *\*ar-* (K/D *ar-o*, M *àdd-é*, B *eːl-e*, Dl *ɔr-i*, etc.).
[^17]: As per Bechhaus-Gerst, "Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 93.
[^18]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 274.
[^19]: Where *\*-n* is a productive plural marker, cf. Bechhaus-Gerst, "Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen,” p. 109.
### 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.
## Analysis of the Data
Based on the presented data and the etymological discussion accompanying (or not accompanying) individual pieces of it, the following observations can be made:
1. Altogether, [III.2](#iii2) contains twenty items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see [III.3](#iii3)).
2. Analysis of [III.1](#iii1) shows that in the majority of cases where the solitary lexicostatistical item in Nobiin does have a Common Nubian etymology, semantic comparison speaks strongly in favor of innovation, i.e., semantic shift in Nobiin: “blood” ← “fat,” “hear” ← “ear,” “meat” ← “inside,” “say” ← “tell,” “swim” ← “be on the surface,” “tree” ← “jujube”; a few of these cases may be debatable, but the overall tendency is clear. This observation in itself does not contradict the possibility of early separation of Nobiin, but the near-total lack of words that could be identified as reflexes of Proto-Nubian Swadesh equivalents of the respective meanings in this particular group clearly speaks against this historical scenario.
3. It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D ([II.1](#ii1)) is extremely small, especially when compared to the number of exclusive Nile-Nubian isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D. However, this observation neither contradicts nor supports the early separation hypothesis (since we are not assuming that Nobiin should be grouped together with B, M, or Hill Nubian).
# Conclusions
Based on this brief analysis, I suggest that rejection of the Nile-Nubian hypothesis in favor of an alternative historical scenario as proposed by Bechhaus-Gerst is not recommendable, since it runs into no less than two independent historical oddities/anomalies:
1. assumption of a huge number of basic lexical borrowings from Kenuzi–Dongolawi into Nobiin (even including such elements as demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, typically resistant to borrowing);
2. assumption of total loss of numerous Proto-Nubian basic lexical roots in all branches of Nubian except for Nobiin (19–21 possible items in [III.2](#iii2)). Such conservatism would be highly suspicious; it is also directly contradicted by a few examples such as “water” (q.v.) which clearly indicate that Nobiin is innovative rather than conservative.
By contrast, the scenario that retains Nobiin within Nile-Nubian, but postulates the existence of a "pre-Nobiin" substrate or adstrate only assumes one historical oddity, similar to (1) above — the (presumably rapid) replacement of a large chunk of the Nobiin basic lexicon by words borrowed from an unknown substrate. However, it must be noted that the majority of words in [III.2](#iii2) are nouns, rather than verbs or pronouns, and this makes the idea of massive borrowing more plausible than in the case of presumed borrowings from K/D into Nobiin.[^20]
[^20]: For a good typological analogy from a relatively nearby region, cf. the contact situation between Northern Songhay languages and Berber languages as described, e.g., in Souag, *Grammatical Contact in the Sahara.*
This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a "pre-Nile- Nubian substrate" in Nobiin by Claude Rilly,[^21] who, based on a general distributional analysis of Nubian lexicon, claims to identify no fewer than fifty-one Nobiin lexical items derived from that substrate, most of them belonging to the sphere of basic lexicon. It remains to be ascertained if all of Rillyʼs fifty-one items are truly unique in Nobiin (as I have already mentioned above, some of these Nobiin isolates might eventually turn out to be retentions from Proto-Nubian if future data on Hill Nubian and Midob happens to contain etymological parallels), but the fact that Rilly and the author of this paper arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other by means of somewhat different methods looks reassuring.
[^21]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 285–289.
If the Nile-Nubian branch is to be reinstated, and the specific features of Nobiin are to be explained by the influence of a substrate that did not affect its closest relative (K/D), this leaves us with two issues to be resolved — (a) chronology (and geography) of linguistic events, and (b) the genetic affiliation of the "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" in question.
The aspect of chronology has previously been discussed in glottochronological terms.[^22] In both of these sources the application of the glottochronological method as introduced by Morris Swadesh and later recalibrated by Sergei Starostin allowed to generate the following classification and datings (**fig. 2**):
[^22]: Starostin, *Языки Африки,* pp. 34–36; Vasilyey & Starostin, "Лексикостатистическая классификация нубийских языков.”
![Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages](../static/images/classification.png "Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages")
**~~Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages with glottochronological datings (generated by the StarlingNJ method)[^23]~~**
[^23]: For a detailed description of the StarlingNJ distance-based method of phylogenetic classification and linguistic dating, see Kassian, "Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus).”
If we take the glottochronological figures at face value, they imply the original separation of Proto-Nile-Nubian around three to three and a half thousand years ago, and then a further split between the ancestors of modern Nobiin and K/D around two to two and a half thousand years ago. Interestingly enough, these events are chronologically correlatable with the two main events in the history of Nile-Nubian languages according to Bechhaus-Gerst, but not quite in the way that she envisions it: her "early separation of Nobiin" becomes the early separation of Nobiin and K/D, and her "later separation of K/D" becomes "final split between Nobiin and K/D.” The interaction between Nobiin and the mysterious "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" must have therefore taken place some time in the 1st millennium CE (after the split with K/D but prior to the appearance of the first written texts in Old Nubian). Nevertheless, at this point I would like to refrain from making any definitive conclusions on probable dates and migration routes, given the possibility of alternate glottochronological models.
The other issue — linguistic identification of the “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” — is even more interesting, since its importance goes far beyond Nubian history, and its successful resolution may have direct implications for the reconstruction of the linguistic history of Africa in general. Unfortunately, at this moment one can only speculate about what that substrate might have been, or even about whether it is reasonable to speak about a single substrate or a variety of idioms that may have influenced the early independent development of Nobiin.
Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) similarities between his fifty-one "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" elements and other languages spoken in the region today or in antiquity, reached the conclusion that the substrate in question may have contained two layers: one related to ancient Meroitic, and still another one coming from the same Northern branch of Eastern Sudanic languages to which Nubian itself is claimed to belong.[^24] An interesting example of the former would be, e.g., the resemblance between ON *mašal* “sun” and Meroitic *ms* “sun, sun god,” while the latter may be illustrated with the example of Nobiin *šìgír-tí* “hair” = Tama *sìgít* id. However, few of Rillyʼs other parallels are equally convincing — most of them are characterized by either significant phonetic (e.g., Nobiin *súː* vs. Nara *sàː* “milk”) or semantic (e.g., Nobiin *nóːg* “house” vs. Nara *lòg* “earth”) discrepancies, not something one would really expect from contact relations that only took place no earlier than two thousand years ago. Subsequent research has not managed to alleviate that problem: cf., e.g., the attempt to derive Nobiin *nùlù* “white” from proto-Northeast Sudanic *\*ŋesil* “tooth,”[^25] unconvincing due to multiple phonetic and semantic issues at the same time.
[^24]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 285.
[^25]: Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan,” pp. 1181–1182.
In *Языки Африки,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,[^26] who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in [III.2](#iii2) yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as:
* *túllí* “smoke” — cf. Nuer *toːl*, Dinka *tol* “smoke”;
* *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.
[^26]: Thelwall, "Lexicostatistical Relations be­twe­en Nu­bian, Daju and Dinka,” pp. 273–274.
[^27]: Voßen, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354.
[^28]: Rottland, *Die Südnilotischen Sprachen,* p. 390.
In any case, the main point of this paper is not so much to shed light on the origin of substrate elements in Nobiin as it is to show that pure lexicostatistics, when applied to complex cases of language relationship, may reveal anomalies that can only be resolved by means of a careful etymological analysis of the accumulated evidence. It is entirely possible that advanced character-based phylogenetic methods might offer additional insight into this problem, but ultimately it all comes down to resolving the problem by means of manual searching for cognates, albeit without forgetting about statistical grounding of the conclusions.
In this particular case, I believe that the evidence speaks strongly in favor of reinstating the Nile-Nubian clade comprising both Nobiin and Kenuzi–Dongolawi, although it must be kept in mind that a common linguistic ancestor and a common ethnic ancestor are not necessarily the same thing (e.g., the linguistic conclusion does not at all exclude the possibility that early speakers of Kenuzi–Dongolawi did shift to Proto-Nile-Nubian from some other language — not necessarily Nubian in origin itself).
# Abbreviations
* B — Birgid;
* D — Dongolawi;
* Dl — Dilling;
* K — Kenuzi;
* K/D — Kenuzi–Dongolawi;
* M — Midob;
* N — Nobiin;
* ON — Old Nubian;
* PN — Proto-Nubian.
# Bibliography
Armbruster, Charles H. *![Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon.](bib:9ae2354f-5462-455c-b8cd-443e2eb19d5d)* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. ![“‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered.”](bib:c17c58a0-0137-4db8-9f52-5d40e2acffa4) In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lio­nel Be­n­der. Ham­burg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. ![“Sprachliche und his­torische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter beson­de­rer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen.”](bib:49ab42ae-e792-4474-855c-0b2985eca9f) *Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika* 6 (1985): pp. 7–134.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. *Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer diachronen Soziolinguistik.* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1996.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. *![The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change.](bib:5e1fabdb-e176-4b9a-977d-2d0440451406)* Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Bell, Herman. ![“Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language.”](bib:35fa2069-2d2e-4fa7-bc37-e9f348e52f9f) *Su­dan Notes and Re­cords* 56 (1975): pp. 1–35.
Browne, Gerald M. *![Old Nubian Dictionary.](bib:8847cd9f-19d3-4c25-9c43-9377779bc83e)* Leuven: Pee­ters, 1996.
Greenberg, Joseph H. *![The Languages of Africa.](bib:a107ca3b-6b11-49b2-bed3-9b246c811eec)* Bloo­mington: Indiana University Press, 1966.
Güldemann, Tom. ![“Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa.”](bib:e5dbfdd7-93b5-4b66-9513-92403370363d) In *The Languages and Linguistics of Africa,* edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. ![“Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.”](bib:d4793f1d-1c5b-4f72-9238-f9052715202a) In *Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 393–411.
Hofmann, Inge. *![Material für eine meroitische Grammatik.](bib:a574c464-a505-49e5-acc9-3eb3736abc6e)* Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 16. Vienna: Afro-Pub, 1981.
Hofmann, Inge. *![Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis: Nu­bisch-­deutsches und deutsch-nubisches Wörterverzeichnis nach dem Kenzi-Ma­te­ri­al des Samuêl Alî Hisên (1863–1927).](bib:125dbfe0-65d2-4b83-8ef0-1fad42cbab13)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1986.
Jakobi, Angelika. ![“The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nu­bian Consonants.”](bib:203bbfff-ec1d-4b89-bfe9-c1a3f5789a9f) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Cul­ture,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdi­ger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228.
Kassian, Alexei. ![“Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus): Testing Various Phylogenetic Methods on Lexical Data.”](bib:8e098b56-d72d-4eeb-a10f-70bc1a39a77a) *PLoS ONE* 10, no. 2 (2015). [doi]({sc}): [10.1371/journal.pone.0116950](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116950).
Kauczor, P. Daniel. *![Die Bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Ge­bel Deleṅ).](bib:bb04328a-45bb-448e-a21e-25ba8f55678f)* Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920.
Khalil, Mokhtar M. *![Wörterbuch der nubischen Spra­che (Fadidja/Maḥas Dialekt).](bib:a2595a61-56ab-4d1b-92d9-b723873dd13b)* Warsaw: Piotr O. Scholtz, 1996.
Krell, Amy. *![Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups (Southern Kordofan, Sudan).](bib:9270c495-3e56-44be-b5b3-1e31d3bae6ad)* SIL International, 2012.
Lepsius, C. Richard. *![Nubische Grammatik. Mit einer Einleitung über die Völker und Sprachen Afrikas.](bib:c1d83106-8caa-4e1c-ae3b-403e8518e3d8)* Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1880.
Rilly, Claude. ![“Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan.”](bib:167fe6a1-be93-4478-b86c-ab1bec6bc7b3) In *The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies,* edited by Julie Renée Anderson and Derek A. Welsby. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 2014: pp. 1169–1188.
Rilly, Claude. *![Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.](bib:c191b60d-ae64-4eee-9c72-e71b7ae987b5)* Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Rottland, Franz. *![Die Südnilotischen Sprachen: Be­sch­rei­­bung, Vergleichung und Rekonstruktion.](bib:3181d790-c83d-4270-91c1-92bb8e4011c0)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1982.
Souag, Mostafa Lameen. *![Grammatical Contact in the Sahara: Arabic, Berber, and Songhay in Tabelbala and Siwa.](bib:abe777c2-b537-4a66-8cf4-97bb0c1c236d)* PhD Thesis, SOAS, University of London, 2010.
Starostin, George. *![Языки Африки. Опыт построения лексикостатистической классификации. Том II: Восточносуданские языки](bib:efd42d6b-6994-4fd9-998f-43c5adde5176)* [*Languages of Africa: An Attempt at a Lexicostatistical Classification, Vol. II: East Sudanic Languages*]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʼtury, 2014.
Thelwall, Robin. ![“A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.”](bib:c0a34308-1929-42cd-b792-1a1890f14564) In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigall 1874–1974,* edited by Herbert Gansl­mayr and Hermann Jungraithmayr. Bremen: Übersee-Museum, 1977: pp. 197–210.
Thelwall, Robin. ![“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.”](bib:ee4574a0-9dbe-408a-85d9-2fade87a4e54) 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. ![“Лексикостатистическая классификация нубийских языков: к вопросу о нильско-нубийской языковой общности"](bib:84a743da-7b7d-4651-bfd4-1304e528de88) ["Lexicostatistical Classification of the Nubian languages and the Issue of the Nile-Nubian Genetic Unity"]. *Journal of Language Relationship* 12 (2014): 51–72.
Voßen, Rainer. *![The Eastern Nilotes: Linguistic and His­to­ri­cal Reconstructions.](bib:09dc7cd8-9435-440a-9c10-721d09bb7352)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982.
Werner, Roland. *![Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Pho­no­logie, Tonologie und Morphologie.](bib:ba479815-db8e-423f-92f6-8795b97c0ae3)* Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987.
Werner, Roland. *![Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nu­bian).](bib:a834aff7-cd58-4268-b1cb-2fcc3f48e6e2)* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.

1002
content/article/tsakos.md
View file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

1526
content/article/urosmatic.md
View file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

3
content/author/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: "List of authors"
---

7
content/author/alexandrostsakos.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Alexandros Tsakos
---
# Biography
Alexandros Tsakos is working at the Special Collections of the University of Bergen library. He specializes in Christian Nubia, especially religious literacy, and the cult of the Archangel Michael. He has worked in the field and in museums in Sudan and is co-editor-in-chief of the Nubiological Journal Dotawo.

7
content/author/angelikajakobi.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Angelika Jakobi
---
# Biography
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.

7
content/author/clauderilly.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Claude Rilly
---
# Biography
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).

7
content/author/georgestarostin.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: George Starostin
---
# Biography
George Starostin is a leading researcher in comparative-historical linguistics at the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies of the Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia), as well as head of the international project "Evolution of Human Languages" (Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA).

7
content/author/matthieuhonegger.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Matthieu Honegger
---
# Biography
Bio.

7
content/author/rogermblench.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Roger M. Blench
---
# Biography
Roger M. Blench is an anthropologist with interests in archaeology, linguistics and ethnomusicology. He gained his PhD from Cambridge University in 1975 and has since worked as a consultant sociologist. He is a Visiting Fellow at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Jos, and the Chief Research Officer of the Kay Williamson Educational Foundation.

7
content/author/russelnorton.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Russell Norton
---
# Biography
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.

7
content/author/urosmatic.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Uroš Matić
---
# Biography
Bio

8
content/author/vincentwjvangervenoei.md
View file

@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
---
title: Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei
draft: true
---
# Biography
Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei is a publisher and philologist, specialized in Old Nubian. He is co-managing editor of _Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies._

3
content/editor/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: "List of editors"
---

7
content/editor/henriettehafsaas.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Henriette Hafsaas
---
# Biography
Henriette Hafsaas is a Sudan archaeologist working at the University College of Volda holding a PhD from the University of Bergen.

7
content/editor/vincentwjvangervenoei.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei
---
# Biography
Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei is a publisher and philologist, specialized in Old Nubian. He is co-managing editor of *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies.*

3
content/issue/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: "List of issues"
---

122
content/issue/dotawo7.md
View file

@ -1,122 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Dotawo 7: Comparative Northern East Sudanic Linguistics"
editors: ["vincentwjvangervenoei.md"]
has_articles: ["rilly.md", "norton.md", "jakobi.md", "starostin.md", "blench.md"]
---
# Preface by the Editor
## A New Platform
Since its inception, the [Union for Nubian Studies](http://unionfornubianstudies.org/) has been committed to opening up Nubiological research to a wider audience and broadening access to source materials. *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* was launched in 2014 as an open-access journal, with free access for both authors and readers. It has been hosted by [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/) of Fairfield University and since 2019 by University of California's [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo) platform.
Both digital platforms allowed *Dotawo* to grow, expanding its reach by means of the creation of persistent digital identifiers and membership of the [Directory of Open Access Journals](https://doaj.org/toc/2373-2571). The content of *Dotawo,* however, remained essentially tailored to human — rather than machine — readers because it was only available in PDF or printed form, and to privileged readers with access to institutional libraries because the references it included were often difficult to access for members of the public without such access, even though most if not all of this research was produced with the aid of public funds. This state of affairs presented a challenge in terms of the accessibility and discoverability of the journal as well as the long-term preservation and openness of the scholarship presented and referenced.
Starting with the present issue, *Dotawo* will design and publish its content via the [Sandpoints](https://git.sandpoints.org/UnionForNubianStudies/Dotawo) platform. *Dotawo* contributions are formatted in [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) syntax, thus moving away from proprietary software such as Microsoft Word and Adobe InDesign. For collaboration and version-control we employ [Git](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git) rather than Google Drive or Dropbox. The online issue is created via [Gitea](https://gitea.io/en-us/) and [Hugo](https://gohugo.io/), which take the Markdown files from the Git repository and generate a static website from them. The result is a compact and fast website, which moreover can also be used offline. Also the typography of *Dotawo* is now based on open fonts. The journal is typeset in [Gentium](https://software.sil.org/gentium/), which is released under an [SIL Open Font License](http://scripts.sil.org/ofl). The PDF output is generated by [PagedJS](https://www.pagedjs.org/), and will continue to be hosted on the eScholarship platform, while the printed book will remain available through scholar-led open access press [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/imprints/dotawo/). In short, all of the software used in the creation of *Dotawo* is now open source. Although this process demands a certain amount of flexibility of the editors, it also shows that transitioning an open access journal to open infrastructure is not only possible but also feasible.
The plundering and destruction of the University of Khartoum by forces allied with the former dictator during the 2019 Sudanese Revolution[^8] has once again impressed upon us the precarity of the research environment in which many scholars of Nubia operate and thus the necessity and moral obligation of creating open and resistant scholarly infrastructures. To improve the long-term preservation of and access to the scholarship contained and referenced in *Dotawo*, all sources mentioned in contributions to the journal will henceforth be linked, as much as possible, to records deposited in a public library using the open infrastructure of [Memory of the World](https://www.memoryoftheworld.org/).[^10] This will allow for easy storage and dissemination of both content and context of the research presented in *Dotawo* to those scholars of Nubia — and there are many — who are not institutionally privileged, including many who live in the Global South.
A recent, bleak assessment by Richard Poynder of the goals set by the [Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) Declaration](https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read) in 2002, and the open access movement more broadly, states that "it now seems unlikely that the *affordability* and *equity* problems will be resolved, which will impact disproportionately negatively on those in the Global South”:[^5]
>OA advocates failed to anticipate — and then for too long ignored — how their advocacy was allowing legacy publishers to co-opt open access, and in ways that work as much against the goals of BOAI as for them. And they have often downplayed the negative consequences that OA policies and initiatives developed in the Global North will have for those in the Global South.[^6]
Furthermore, it appears that the turn toward open access in the scholarly communications landscape is increasingly facilitating the agendas of an oligopoly of for-profit data analytics companies. Perhaps realizing that "they've found something that is even more profitable than selling back to us academics the content that we have produced,”[^9] they venture ever further up the research stream, with every intent to colonize and canalize its entire flow.[^4] This poses a severe threat to the independence and quality of scholarly inquiry.[^7]
In the light of these troubling developments, the expansion from *Dotawo* as a "diamond" open access to a *common access* journal represents a strong reaffirmation of the call that the late Aaron Swartz succinctly formulated in his "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto":
>Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world.[^3]
Swartz's is a call to action that transcends the limitations of the open access movement as construed by the BOAI Declaration by plainly affirming that knowledge is a common good. His call goes beyond open access, because it specifically targets materials that linger on a paper or silicon substrate in academic libraries and digital repositories without being accessible to "fair use.” The deposition of the references from *Dotawo* contributions in a public library is a first and limited attempt to offer a remedy, heeding the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use" of the [Association of Research Libraries](https://www.arl.org/resources/code-of-best-practices-in-fair-use-designing-the-public-domain/), which approvingly cites the late Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that “the noblest of human productions — knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas — become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.”[^1] This approach also dovetails the interpretation of "folk law" recently propounded by Kenneth Goldsmith, the founder of public library [Ubuweb](https://ubu.com/).[^2]
I strongly believe that it is in the interest of Nubian Studies and its stakeholders, especially scholars in adjunct or para-academic positions without access to institutional repositories, and the Nubian people who are actively denied knowledge of their own culture, to enable the *widest possible* dissemination of scholarship. In this enterprise, striving for common access and relying on open source software are merely a first step.
[^1]: *Int’l News Serv. v. Associated Press,* 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), cited in Anon., "Designing the Public Domain,” p. 1494.
[^2]: Goldsmith, *Duchamp Is My Lawyer.*
[^3]: Swartz, "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto.”
[^4]: See, e.g., Moore, "The Datafication in Transformative Agreements for Open Access Publishing.”
[^5]: Poynder, "Open access: 'Information wants to be free'?" p. 2.
[^6]: Ibid., p. 22.
[^7]: The reduction in agency of academics as a result of the implementation of open access schemes has been widely recognized. As Christopher Kelty put it succinctly: "OA has come to exist and scholarship is more available and more widely distributed than ever before. But, scholars now have less control, and have taken less responsibility for the means of production of scientific research, its circulation, and perhaps even the content of that science" ("Recursive Publics and Open Access,” p. 7). These problems are exacerbated in the Global South, as the financial models for OA funding developed in the Global North threaten local public infrastructures managed by academics (Aguado-López & Becerril-Garcia, "The Commercial Model of Academic Publishing Underscoring Plan S Weakens the Existing Open Access Ecosystem in Latin America").
[^8]: "Report: Large Parts of University of Khartoum Destroyed on June 3.”
[^9]: Bodó, "Own Nothing,” p. 23.
[^10]: A public library is defined as follows: "[A] public library is: free access to books for every member of society; library catalog; librarian" (Mars, Zarroug & Medak, "Public Library,” p. 85).
## About This Issue
The seventh issue of *Dotawo* is dedicated to Comparative Northern East Sudanic (NES) linguistics, offering new insights in the historical connections between the Nubian languages and other members of the NES family such as Nyima, Taman, Nara, and Meroitic. A special focus is placed on comparative morphology.
The Nilo-Saharan phylum was first proposed by Joseph Greenberg as a linguistic remainder grouping whose internal affiliations remained unclear.[^a1] The Nilo-Saharan phylum contained what Greenberg then called Chari-Nile languages, which in turn included the Eastern Sudanic family. The coherence of this larger linguistic grouping will be investigated in the contribution by Roger Blench, ![“Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic.”](article:blench.md)
Within Eastern Sudanic,[^a12] there is a further subdivision between what Lionel Bender referred to as the Ek- and En-branch, based on the shape of the [1sg]({sc}) pronoun.[^a2] Bender's Ek-branch contains the Nubian language, Nara, as well as the Nyima and Taman languages. This group of languages is now commonly referred to as Northern East Sudanic.
Although the contours of NES are relatively well established, much of the details of its linguistic development and relations remain the subject of ongoing research and debate. There are three particular issues within NES linguistics to which the articles in the present issue make a contribution:
* The coherence of Nile Nubian
* The inclusion of Nyima
* The inclusion of Meroitic
### The Coherence of Nile Nubian
Robin Thelwall proposed that the apparent proximity between Nile Nubian languages Nobiin and Mattokki–Andaandi was not the result of their belonging to the same branch within the Nubian language family, but due to prolonged language contact.[^a4] In other words, he proposed that there was no such thing as "Nile Nubian.” This proposal was further developed by Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst using lexicostatistical methods.[^a5]
Based on comparative NES phonology, Claude Rilly concluded on the contrary that Nobiin and Mattokki–Andaandi were closely related, and that the divergence between the two in terms of vocabulary was due to the influence of a substrate language underneath Nobiin.[^a6] Rilly's arguments are supported independently by lexicostatistical evidence presented by George Starostin in his contribution ![“Restoring ‘Nile Nubian’: How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages.”](article:starostin.md) Angelika Jakobi's ![“Nubian Verb Extensions and Some Nyima Correspondences”](article:jakobi.md) provides further morphological evidence for the coherence of Nile Nubian.[^a10]
### The Inclusion of Nyima
Although Bender, Rilly, and Dimmendaal include the Nyima languages within NES,[^a7] these are excluded by Christopher Ehret in his *Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan.*[^a8] Rejecting Ehret's proposition, Russell Norton's contribution ![“Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective”](article:norton.md) provides morphological evidence for inclusion of Nyima in NES. This is reinforced by several correspondences discussed in Jakobi's contribution between Nubian and Nyima.
### 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 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.
[^a4]: Thelwall, "Linguistic Aspects of a Greater Nubian History,” pp. 47–48.
[^a5]: See, in particular, Bechhaus-Gerst, "'Nile Nubian' Reconsidered.”
[^a6]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 274–288.
[^a7]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 181–183; Dimmendaal, "Nilo-Saharan,” p. 593.
[^a8]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* p. 88. Ehret refers to NES as "Astaboran.”
[^a9]: See, for an overview, Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 25–36.
[^a10]: Perhaps it is now time for [Glottolog](https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/nubi1251) to update its entry on Nubian.
[^a11]: Dimmendaal, "Nilo-Saharan,” p. 593.
[^a12]: See, for a recent overview, Güldemann, "Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa,” pp. 299–309.
# Bibliography
Aguado-López, Eduardo & Arianna Becerril-Garcia, ![“The Commercial Model of Academic Publishing Underscoring Plan S Weakens the Existing Open Access Ecosystem in Latin America.”](bib:768e0223-36c1-4b21-92a3-1ffb112dbd6c) *LSE Impact Blog,* May 20, 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/05/20/the-commercial-model-of-academic-publishing-underscoring-plan-s-weakens-the-existing-open-access-ecosystem-in-latin-america/.
Anon. ![“Designing the Public Domain.”](bib:4e7383bf-d59e-4884-a5d7-7bed70d71290) *Harvard Law Review* 122, no. 5 (2009): pp. 1489–1510.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. ![“‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered.”](bib:c17c58a0-0137-4db8-9f52-5d40e2acffa4) In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lio­nel Be­n­der. Ham­burg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96.
Bender, M. Lionel. *![The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.](bib:451c9cbd-baec-4d48-a568-aee6736ae290)* Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005.
Bodó, Balázs. ![“Own Nothing.”](bib:2bb209af-f602-4d9f-9e85-64bf680a9661) In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 16–24.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Nilo-Saharan.”](bib:5776b1b1-022a-45c0-9560-bdc8859dd74b) In *The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology,* edited by Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: pp. 591–607.
Ehret, Christopher. *![A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan.](bib:cf0fc6eb-0e34-4dee-8902-c553e8aaa0ee)* Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001.
Goldsmith, Kenneth. *![Duchamp Is My Lawyer: The Polemics, Pragmatics, and Poetics of Ubuweb.](bib:5a73dbe3-2192-4496-9574-8d6a84cc71b3)* New York: Columbia University Press, 2020.
Greenberg, Joseph H. *![The Languages of Africa.](bib:a107ca3b-6b11-49b2-bed3-9b246c811eec)* The Hague: Mouton, 1963.
Güldemann, Tom. ![“Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa.”](bib:e5dbfdd7-93b5-4b66-9513-92403370363d) In *The Languages and Linguistics of Africa,* edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444.
Kelty, Christopher. ![“Recursive Publics and Open Access.”](bib:8d18f630-9111-41ce-9d17-43e998ed9074) In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 6–15.
Mars, Marcell, Manar Zarroug & Tomislav Medak. ![“Public Library.”](bib:8bc32541-4d65-49a4-9dac-d8e109fd3ec6) In *Javna knjižnica – Public Library,* edited by Marcell Mars, Tomislav Medak, and WHW. Zagreb: WHW/Multimedijalni Institut, 2015: pp. 75–85.
Moore, Samuel. ![“The Datafication in Transformative Agreements for Open Access Publishing.”](bib:63cfa334-1986-4073-bf4e-78c4a3a05fe6) July 3, 2020. https://www.samuelmoore.org/2020/07/03/the-datafication-in-transformative-agreements-for-open-access-publishing/
![“Report: Large Parts of University of Khartoum Destroyed on June 3.”](bib:c488659d-f9d3-4e24-a1cf-333e6f6cd6d3) *Dabanga,* August 7, 2019. https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/report-large-parts-of-university-of-khartoum-destroyed-on-june-3.
Rilly, Claude. *![Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.](bib:c191b60d-ae64-4eee-9c72-e71b7ae987b5)* Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Swartz, Aaron. ![“Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto.”](bib:5c018728-5ffc-4a43-84c7-dae88e1b81d9) July 2008. https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/page/n1/mode/2up.
Thelwall, Robin. ![“Linguistic Aspects of Greater Nubian History.”](bib:c1df2a82-ba52-4588-acda-1086e2dc3bcf) In *The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History,* edited by Christopher Ehret and Merrick Posnansky, pp. 39–56. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

11
content/issue/dotawo8.md
View file

@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Dotawo 8: War in the Sudan"
editors: ["henriettehafsaas.md"]
has_articles: ["matic.md", "tsakos.md", "honegger.md", "urosmatic.md"]
---
# Preface by the Editor
Preface
# Bibliography

7
content/issue/misc.md
View file

@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Miscellanea"
editors: []
has_articles: ["obituary_pagoulatos.md"]
---
Miscellanea blabla over time, issue will be released.

24
content/journal/index.md
View file

@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
---
title: Dotawo - A Journal of Nubian Studies
has_issues: ["dotawo7.md", "dotawo8.md", "misc.md"]
---
# About Dotawo
Nubian studies needs a platform in which the old meets the new, in which archaeological, historical, and philological research into Meroitic, Old Nubian, Coptic, Greek, and Arabic sources confront current investigations in modern anthropology and ethnography, Nilo-Saharan linguistics, and critical and theoretical approaches present in postcolonial and African studies.
The journal *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* brings these disparate fields together within the same fold, opening a cross-cultural and diachronic field where divergent approaches meet on common soil. *Dotawo* gives a common home to the past, present, and future of one of the richest areas of research in African studies. It offers a crossroads where papyrus can meet internet, scribes meet critical thinkers, and the promises of growing nations meet the accomplishments of old kingdoms.
# Previous Issues
From 2014 to 2019, PDF articles of *Dotawo* were hosted by [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/). Since 2019, articles are available through University of California's [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo) platform. A print version of *Dotawo* is available through [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/imprints/dotawo/), which also hosts the *Dotawo Monograph* series.
* *Dotawo* 1, ed. Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei, Angelika Jakobi & Giovanni Ruffini (2014). Available at [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/titles/dotawo-volume-1-2014/) · [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo/1/1) · [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/vol1/iss1/)
* *Dotawo* 2, ed. Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei, Angelika Jakobi & Giovanni Ruffini (2015). Available at [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/titles/dotawo-volume-2-2015/) · [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo/2/1) · [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/vol2/iss1/)
* *Dotawo* 3: "Know-How and Techniques in Ancient Sudan," ed. Marc Maillot (2016). Available at [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/titles/dotawo-volume-3-2016/) · [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo/3/1) · [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/vol3/iss1/)
* *Dotawo* 4: "Place Names and Place Naming in Ancient Nubia," ed. Robin Seignobos & Alexandros Tsakos (2017). Available at [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/titles/dotawo-a-journal-of-nubian-studies-4/) · [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo/4/1) · [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/vol4/iss1/)
* *Dotawo* 5: "Nubian Women," ed. Anne Jennings (2018). Available at [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/titles/dotawo-a-journal-of-nubian-studies-5-nubian-women/) · [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo/5/1) · [DigitalCommons@Fairfield](https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/djns/vol5/iss1/)
* *Dotawo* 6: "Miscellanea Nubiana," ed. Adam Simmons (2019). Available at [punctum books](https://punctumbooks.com/titles/dotawo-a-journal-of-nubian-studies-6/) · [eScholarship](https://escholarship.org/uc/dotawo/6/1)
Read more about *Dotawo* on the website of the [Union for Nubian Studies](http://unionfornubianstudies.org/projects/dotawo/).

3
content/print/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: "List of print pages"
---

5
content/print/dotawoAll.md
View file

@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Whole Dotawo web site"
print: "journal/index.md"
draft: false
---

5
content/print/issue7.md
View file

@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
---
title: "Issue 7 Print"
print: "issue/dotawo7.md"
draft: false
---

3
content/urls/_index.md
View file

@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
---
title: Urls
---