diff --git a/content/article/blench.md b/content/article/blench.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0079a2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/article/blench.md
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+title: "Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic"
+author: "Roger Blench"
+abstract: ""
+keywords: "East Sudanic, Nilo-Saharan, comparative linguistics"
+---
diff --git a/content/article/jakobi.md b/content/article/jakobi.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d9cb7a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/article/jakobi.md
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+title: "Reconstructing Proto-Nubian Derivational Morphemes"
+author: "Angelika Jakobi"
+abstract: ""
+keywords: ""
+---
diff --git a/content/article/russell.md b/content/article/norton.md
similarity index 98%
rename from content/article/russell.md
rename to content/article/norton.md
index 8f60b02..1984e83 100644
--- a/content/article/russell.md
+++ b/content/article/norton.md
@@ -332,8 +332,8 @@ Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of
Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural participant (distributivity implies plurality but is distinct from it),[^42] which distinguishes them from plural-object pluractionals found in many Nubian languages that mark, and are thus obligatory with, plural objects.[^43] Distributives are also characterized by non-occurrence with dual participants (to be non-trivial, distribution requires at least three targets).[^44] The Ama distributive has the first property of optionality in transitive (but not intransitive) verbs, and the second property of non-duality with respect to subjects (but not objects).[^45] This second property is shared by the Afitti suffix *-t(ə)r* which likewise does not occur with dual subjects.[^46] This is shown in Afitti field data below,[^47] where the suffix *-t(ə)r* contrasts in this respect with plural pronominal affixes 1pl *ko-*, 2pl *o-*, and 3pl *-i* which do occur with dual subjects.
[^42]: Corbett, *Number,* p. 116.
-[^43]: Jakobi, this issue.
-[^44]: Corbett, Number, pp. 115-116.
+[^43]: 
+[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115-116.
[^45]: Norton, “Number in Ama vVrbs,” pp. 78, 79, 91.
[^46]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903.
[^47]: I am grateful to Alex de Voogt for sharing this data in personal communication from his field research on Afitti.
@@ -353,14 +353,14 @@ Beyond the Nyima branch, the Temein “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* shares
The confirmation of distributive markers across Nubian, Nyima, and Temein implies that a distributive pluractional was present in Eastern Sudanic from an early stage, with a form like *\*-id.* In Nubian the consonant is palatal,[^50] and although palatals are a difficult area for establishing wider sound correspondences,[^51] the palatal arises in the plausible conditioning environment of a high front vowel.
-[^50]: Jakobi, this issue. 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.
+[^50]:  Jakobi points that the other very similar suffix *-íd* in Midob cannot be reconstructed to proto-Nubian from just one Nubian language, so appears to be an innovation, and her observation of its similarity to the Ama suffix clearly suggests borrowing into Midob from Ama’s ancestor or another related language. Hence, the reconstructable pluractional **[i]ɟ* is more viable as the historic cognate of the Ama suffix.
+[^51]: Rilly,  pp. 303-304.
### Second Historic Pluractionals
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.
+[^52]: 
[^53]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language.”
The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks unexpected events (*swāy-ɔ́* “was cultivating” → *swāy-ɔ̄r-ɔ́* “was unexpectedly cultivating”, where the vowel has harmonized to the following vowel). However, this suffix is also used to disambiguate progressive verb forms from otherwise indistinguishable factatives (*sāŋ-ɛ̄n/sāŋ-ɛ̄n, sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n* “search (du.)”),[^54] providing what looks like an alternate progressive stem to take the dual suffix. Similarly, the negative imperative construction in Ama requires a progressive stem with *-ar* after the negative particle *fá* as shown in **table 14** below. Inflections occurring in this construction are a plural subject marker *à-* on the particle, and dual or distributive marking on the verb. Only the dual suffix can occur without *-ar*, where in my data the dual suffix adds to the longer stem with *-ar* unless the short stem is suppletive (*t̪ī-ə̀/túŋ* “sleep,” t̪àl/*tām* “eat”) and can take the dual suffix without ambiguity with factative aspect.
@@ -428,4 +428,4 @@ This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification
[^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.
+[^70]: 
diff --git a/content/article/rilly.md b/content/article/rilly.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4363cf2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/article/rilly.md
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+title: "Personal Markers in Meroitic"
+author: "Claude Rilly"
+abstract: ""
+keywords: "Meroitic"
+---
diff --git a/content/article/starostin.md b/content/article/starostin.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3303b15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/article/starostin.md
@@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
+---
+title: "Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages"
+author: "George Starostin"
+abstract: ""
+keywords: "comparative linguistics, Nilo-Saharan, glottochronology, lexicostatistics, Nubian"
+---
+
+# 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*.
+
+
+| | Meidob | 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, *Jazyki Afriki,* 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]: Storostin, *Jazyki Afriki*.
+
+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.[^abbrev] 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.
+
+[^abbrev]: In this article, the following language abbreviations are used:
+B — Birgid;
+D — Dongolawi;
+Dl — Dilling;
+K — Kenuzi;
+K/D — Kenuzi-Dongolawi;
+M — Midob;
+N — Nobiin;
+ON — Old Nubian;
+PN — Proto-Nubian.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+**Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst**
+
+Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [section III](#iii) of the list below), but how can we distinguish retentions from innovations? If the word in question has no etymological cognates in any other Nubian language, then in most cases such a distinction is impossible.[^10] However, if the retention or innovation in question was not accompanied by the total elimination of the root morpheme, but rather involved a semantic shift, then investigating the situation from an etymological point of view may shed some significant light on the matter. In general, the more lexicostatistical discrepancies we find between Nobiin and the rest of Nubian where the Nobiin item has a Common Nubian etymology, the better the case for the "early separation of Nobiin" hypothesis; the more "strange" words we find in Nobiin whose etymological parallels in the other Nubian languages are highly questionable or non-existent, the stronger the case for the "pre-Nobiin substrate" hypothesis.
+
+[^10]: One possible argument in this case would be to rely on data from external comparison. Thus, if we agree that Nubian belongs to the Northern branch of the Eastern Sudanic family, with the Nara language and the Taman group as its closest relatives (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique*; Starostin, *Jazyki Afriki*), then, in those cases where Nobiin data is opposed to the data of all other Nubian languages, it is the word that finds better etymological parallels in Nara and Tama that shouud be logically regarded as the Proto-Nubian equivalent. However, in order to avoid circularity or the additional problems that one runs into while investigating chronologically distant language relationship, I intentionally restrict the subject matter of this paper to internal Nubian data only.
+
+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, *Jazyki Afriki,* pp. 224–95. A complete 100-item wordlist reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, with detailed notes on phonetics, semantics, and distribution, is scheduled to be added to the already available annotated 100-item wordlists for ten Nubian languages, published as part of [The Global Lexicostatistical Database](http://starling.rinet.ru/new100).
+
+* 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, *Jazyki Afriki*. 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, *Jazyki Afriki,* 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, *Jazyki Afriki,* 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, *Jazyki Afriki,* p. 92 I suggest that, since the regular reflex of PN *\*n-* in Hill Nubian is *d-*, both Nile-Nubian *\*min* and all the *na(i)*-like forms may go back to a unique PN stem *\*nwV-*; if so, the word should be moved to [section I.1](#i1), but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss.
+
+## 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; butterʼ; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M *ə̀ggə́r*, B *igir*, Dl *ogor*, etc.).
+* (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” → Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [section I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here).
+* “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 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 satisfactionʼ) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D *kal* ← PN *\*kɔl* has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl *kol*, M *ə̀l-* id. Regardless of etymologization, N *kàb-* is clearly innovative.
+* “fat”: N *sìlèː*. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages.
+* “fish”: N *ángíssí*. ◊ Replaces ON *watto-*; neither of the two words has any clear parallels in K/D or any other Nubian languages. A possible, though questionable, internal etymology is “living in water” (from *aɲ-* “to live” + *\*essi* “water,” see notes on “water” below).
+* “full”: N *mídd-ìr* (= ON *medd- ~ midd-* “to be full/readyʼ). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *\*merid-* (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure.
+* (?) “good”: N *màs.* ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent *gèn* (= ON *gen-*), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better"), is clearly cognate with D *gɛn* “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl *ken*, Debri *kɛŋ* “good,” etc., going back to PN *\*gen-*. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to [section 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, [section III.2](#iii2) contains 20 items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see [section III.3](#iii3)).
+2. Analysis of [section III.1](iii1) shows that in the majority of cases where the solitary lexicostatistical item in Nobiin does have a Common Nubian etymology, semantic comparison speaks strongly in favor of innovation, i.e. semantic shift in Nobiin: “blood” ← “fat,” “hear” ← “ear,” “meat” ← “inside,” “say” ← “tell,” “swim” ← “be on the surface,” “tree” ← “jujube"; a few of these cases may be debatable, but the overall tendency is clear. This observation in itself does not contradict the possibility of early separation of Nobiin, but the near-total lack of words that could be identified as reflexes of Proto-Nubian Swadesh equivalents of the respective meanings in this particular group clearly speaks against this historical scenario.
+3. It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D ([section II.1](ii1)) is extremely small, especially when compared to the number of exclusive Nile-Nubian isoglosses between Nobiin and K/D. However, this observation neither contradicts nor supports the early separation hypothesis (since we are not assuming that Nobiin should be grouped together with B, M, or Hill Nubian).
+
+# Conclusions
+
+Based on this brief analysis, I suggest that rejection of the Nile-Nubian hypothesis in favor of an alternative historical scenario as proposed by Bechhaus-Gerst is not recommendable, since it runs into no less than two independent historical oddities/anomalies:
+
+1. assumption of a huge number of basic lexical borrowings from Kenuzi–Dongolawi into Nobiin (even including such elements as demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, typically resistant to borrowing);
+2. assumption of total loss of numerous Proto-Nubian basic lexical roots in all branches of Nubian except for Nobiin (19–21 possible items in [section III.2](iii2)). Such conservatism would be highly suspicious; it is also directly contradicted by a few examples such as “water” (q.v.) which clearly indicate that Nobiin is innovative rather than conservative.
+
+By contrast, the scenario that retains Nobiin within Nile-Nubian, but postulates the existence of a "pre-Nobiin" substrate or adstrate only assumes one historical oddity, similar to (1) above — the (presumably rapid) replacement of a large chunk of the Nobiin basic lexicon by words borrowed from an unknown substrate. However, it must be noted that the majority of words in [section III.2](iii2) are nouns, rather than verbs or pronouns, and this makes the idea of massive borrowing more plausible than in the case of presumed borrowings from K/D into Nobiin.[^20]
+
+[^20]: For a good typological analogy from a relatively nearby region, cf. the contact situation between Northern Songhay languages and Berber languages as described, e.g., in Souag, *Grammatical Contact in the Sahara.*
+
+This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a "pre-Nile- Nubian substrate" in Nobiin by Claude Rilly,[^21] who, based on a general distributional analysis of Nubian lexicon, claims to identify no fewer than 51 Nobiin lexical items derived from that substrate, most of them belonging to the sphere of basic lexicon. It remains to be ascertained if all of Rillyʼs 51 items are truly unique in Nobiin (as I have already mentioned above, some of these Nobiin isolates might eventually turn out to be retentions from Proto-Nubian if future data on Hill Nubian and Midob happens to contain etymological parallels), but the fact that Rilly and the author of this paper arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other by means of somewhat different methods looks reassuring.
+
+[^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, *Jazyki Afriki,* pp. 34–36; Vasilyey & Starostin, "Leksikostatisticheskaja klassifikatsija nubijskikh jazykov."
+
+
+
+**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 – 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 51 "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" elements and other languages spoken in the region today or in antiquity, reached the conclusion that the substrate in question may have contained two layers: one related to ancient Meroitic, and still another one coming from the same Northern branch of Eastern Sudanic languages to which Nubian itself is claimed to belong.[^24] An interesting example of the former would be, e.g., the resemblance between ON *mašal* “sun” and Meroitic *ms* “sun, sun god,” while the latter may be illustrated with the example of Nobiin *šìgír-tí* “hair” = Tama *sìgít* id. However, few of Rillyʼs other parallels are equally convincing — most of them are characterized by either significant phonetic (e.g. Nobiin *súː* vs. Nara *sàː* “milk") or semantic (e.g., Nobiin *nóːg* “house” vs. Nara *lòg* “earth") discrepancies, not something one would really expect from contact relations that only took place no earlier than two thousand years ago. Subsequent research has not managed to alleviate that problem: cf., e.g., the attempt to derive Nobiin *nùlù* “white” from proto-Northeast Sudanic *\*ŋesil* “tooth,”[^25] unconvincing due to multiple phonetic and semantic issues at the same time.
+
+[^24]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 285.
+[^25]: Rilly, "Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan," pp. 1181–1182.
+
+In *Jazyki Afriki,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,[^26] who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in [section III.2](iii2) yields at least several phonetically and semantically close matches with West Nilotic, such as:
+
+* *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]: Vossem, *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).
diff --git a/content/article/vangervenoei.md b/content/article/vangervenoei.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4a3809d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/article/vangervenoei.md
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+---
+title: "An Introduction to Northern East Sudanic Linguistics"
+author: "Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei"
+abstract: ""
+keywords: ""
+---
diff --git a/content/issue/dotawo7.md b/content/issue/dotawo7.md
index 9a18868..0462b35 100644
--- a/content/issue/dotawo7.md
+++ b/content/issue/dotawo7.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
---
title: "Dotawo 7: Comparative Northern East Sudanic Linguistics"
-has_articles: ["russell.md"]
+has_articles: ["vangervenoei.md", "blench.md", "starostin.md", "rilly.md", "jakobi.md", "norton.md"]
---
The seventh issue of *Dotawo* is dedicated to Comparative Northern East Sudanic linguistics, offering new insights in the historical connections between the Nubian languages and other members of the NES family such as Nyimang, Tama, Nara, and Meroitic. A special focus is placed on comparative morphology.
diff --git a/content/journal/index.md b/content/journal/index.md
index 0312ce2..a2e36a7 100644
--- a/content/journal/index.md
+++ b/content/journal/index.md
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
---
-title: Dotawo Journal
+title: Dotawo - A Journal of Nubian Studies
has_issues: ["dotawo7.md"]
---
diff --git a/public/article/blench/index.html b/public/article/blench/index.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..69f2510
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/article/blench/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+
Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic - Dotawo Journal
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/public/article/norton/index.html b/public/article/norton/index.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..161c351
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/article/norton/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective - Dotawo Journal
Ama is a North Eastern Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north-west of Dilling, near to where Kordofan Nubian languages are spoken in the north-western Nuba Mountains. “Ama” (ámá “people”) is the self-designated name of the language community identified by the ISO639-3 code [nyi] and replaces the name “Nyimang” in older sources,1 as “Ama” is the name used in local literature in the language created over the last three decades. Nyimang is an altered form of “Nyima,” one of the mountains in the Ama homeland, which is now used as the name of the branch of Eastern Sudanic consisting of Ama [nyi] and Afitti [aft]. I will assume that Nyima is one of a group of four extant northern branches of the Eastern Sudanic family, the others being Nubian, the Nara language, and Taman.2
Ama 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.
kɛ́r
woman
nɪ́
kill (factative)
ɕɪ́ɛ̄
do (transitive)
kɛ̄r
crane (bird sp.)
nɪ̄
kill (progressive 3rd person)
ɕɪ̄ɛ̄
say
kɛ̀r
around
nɪ̀
kill (progressive 1st/2nd person)
ɕɪ̀ɛ̄
do (intransitive)
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.
Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan languages. It has SOV word order, although as we shall see, Ama is not strictly verb-final. It also has coverbs that occur with an inflecting light verb. As in Tama,8 most Ama verbs take their own inflections but coverbs are also seen quite frequently. Many Ama coverbs fit Stevenson’s characterization that the coverb occurs before the light verb stem ɕɪɛ “do/say” and is either an ideophone (with marked phonology such as reduplication or non-mid tone) or a word marked by the suffix -ɛ̄n (typically a borrowed verb).9 The form of the Ama coverb suffix -ɛ̄n matches the Fur co-verb suffix -ɛn ~ -ɛŋ.10 The transitivity of the predicate is distinguished in Ama by the tone on the light verb ɕɪ̀ɛ̄/ɕɪ́ɛ̄.
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.1213
(1)
(2)
The adjoined relative clause strategy means that verbs tend not to occur in noun phrases in Ama, although for completeness we should observe that they are not entirely excluded. Since it is impossible to modify the subject of a transitive clause by an adjoined relative clause, as it is separated by another object or oblique noun, speakers consulted confirmed that it is grammatically acceptable to modify a subject noun by a progressive verb within the noun phrase as in (3), although they felt this is not used much, and I have not found examples in texts. However, verb participles marked by the suffix -ɔ̀ (or -ò by vowel harmony) also occur in noun phrases, including in texts as in (4) and (5).
(3)
(4)
(5)
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
(6)
(7)
We will return to this tendency to express relative clauses and number late in the clause after considering other evidence from verb stems.
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.
The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite and indefinite aspect, and relabeled as perfective and imperfective by more recent authors. However, the usage of the former stem meets the definition of “factative,”16 such that it has a past perfective reading when used for an active verb like “eat,” but a present continuous reading when used for a stative verb like “know.” The other stem has a present progressive reading, which is marginal for stative verbs where the meaning contribution of progressive to an already continuous verb is highly marked.17 The factative–progressive analysis is helpful when we consider the history of these stems below.
Although factative aspect is broader in meaning and more heavily used in text, the progressive stem is generally more basic in form, often consisting only of the bare root. However, neither the factative stem nor the progressive stem is predictable from the other in general because: (i) factative stems belong to various theme vowel classes, and some belong to a class taking a formative prefix t̪V-; (ii) in some verbs the two stems have two different suppletive roots; and (iii) the progressive stems of some verbs require certain obligatory incorporated affixes. When the root is extracted from any additional formatives, CVC is the most frequent verb root shape.
factative
progressive
gloss
morphology other than factative theme vowel
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
An alternation between t̪- and k- cuts into the characteristic CVC shape in one class of Ama verbs as a marker of aspect along with the theme vowel.
factative stem
progressive stem
gloss
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, and Jakobi, albeit with a different standard of transcription; they also detected the alternation in Afitti (tosù/kosìl “suckle,” tòsù/kosìl “light fire”).20
factative stem
progressive stem
gloss
tuɡɛ̀
kwò
build
tàiɔ̀
kaì
chop
tìwò
kìù
dig
tìwò
kèù
fall (of rain)
twɛ̀
kwài
rear, bring up
twèr
kweàɡ
grow (v.i.)
tɔwɛ̀
kwɔ̀i
grow (v.t.)
tuwɛlɛ̀
kwɛlì
guard
tuɡudò
kwoɡidì
mix up, tell lies
toromɔ̀
kwòròm
gnaw
toso
kwoʃì
suck (milk, of baby)
tɔʃìɡ
kwɔʃìɡ
suckle
tosùn
kwosùn
burn (v.i.)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
We can also now tie together this finding with the findings on verb syntax in
+www⁄§2
+. 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.
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.
Some verbal affixes are selected depending on factative or progressive aspect in Ama, just as verb stems are. For example, different suffixes for past tense or for directional movement are selected in the different aspects:
stem
past
factative
t̪àl
t̪àl-ʊ̀n
progressive
tām
tām-áʊ́
Table 9a. Affix selection according to aspect: “eat”
stem
direction
factative
dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄
dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ
progressive
dɪ̄ɟ-ɪ̄
dīɟ-ír
Table 9b. Affix selection according to aspect: “throw”
The same is true of passive and ventive suffixes, but in factative aspect the suffixes replace the theme vowel, so that the affixes are the sole exponent of aspect in many verbs:
stem
passive
factative
ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄
ásɪ̄d̪āy-áɪ́
progressive
ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄
ásɪ̄d̪āy-àɡ
Table 10a. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: “paint”
stem
ventive
factative
ɪ̄r-ɛ̄
ɪ̄r-ɪ́ɪ̄ɡ
progressive
ɪ̄r
ɪ̄r-ɪ́d̪ɛ̄ɛ̀ɡ
Table 10b. Affix selection as sole exponent of aspect: “send”
In passive and in past, affix order also varies according to aspect with respect to the dual suffix -ɛ̄n:
stem
dual passive
factative
ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄
ásɪ̄d̪āy-áy-ɛ̄n
progressive
ásɪ̄d̪āɪ̄
ásɪ̄d̪āy-ɛ̄n-àɡ
Table 11a. Affix order variation according to aspect: “paint”
stem
dual past
factative
sāŋ-ɔ̄
sāŋ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n
progressive
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.)
elicit (du.)
factative
dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̄-ɡ
dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ
kɪ́l-ɛ̄n-ɔ̀
throw-th-dir
throw-ven-du-dir
hear-du-medcaus
factative imperative
dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɛ̄-ɪ̀
dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀
kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ɪ̀
throw-dir-th-imp
throw-ven-dir-du-imp
hear-medcaus-du-imp
factative past
dɪ̀ɟ-ɛ̀ɡ-ɔ̄-ɔ̀n
dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-ɡ-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n
kɪ́l-àw-ɛ̄n-ʊ̀n
throw-dir-th-pst
throw-ven-dir-du-pst
hear-medcaus-du-pst
Table 12. Inward displacement of suffixes by an imperative or past suffix
Both types of affix alternation in tables 11 and 12 involve low-tone suffixes in the final slot. Therefore, the development of all affix order alternations can be attributed to a single historical shift of all low-tone suffixes to the final slot. However, this shift is not realized in verbs containing two low-tone suffixes, because only one of them can go in the final slot. The only final-slot suffix that does not alternate is the imperative -ɪ̀, which leaves imperative as original to the final slot. Other suffixes originate from more internal slots to the left of the dual.
As for the origin of affix selection according to aspect, this presumably arose as an extension of the systematic stem selection that occurs for every verb in Nyima languages. This question remains complex, however, because each of the categories affected (past, passive, directional, ventive) will have its own history as to how alternating affixes were acquired in these conditions. One modest proposal is that the NES plural copula *aɡ shown earlier in table 6 is the likely source of the progressive passive suffix -àɡ in Ama,33 via the shift from pluractional to progressive (
+www⁄§3.3
+), 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.
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.
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
+www⁄§3.3
+above,36 indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix -r used only on verbs with the theme vowel -a (wāɡ-ā “keep,” distributive wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r).37 Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix -tər,38 which corresponds to Ama -ɪ́d̪ and -r combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel -a, but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix -ɪ́d̪ also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix -(ɨ)t̪ in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,39 and a “plurality of action” suffix -íd in Midob.40 The distributive suffix -ij in Kunuz Nubian is also similar.41
Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural participant (distributivity implies plurality but is distinct from it),42 which distinguishes them from plural-object pluractionals found in many Nubian languages that mark, and are thus obligatory with, plural objects.43 Distributives are also characterized by non-occurrence with dual participants (to be non-trivial, distribution requires at least three targets).44 The Ama distributive has the first property of optionality in transitive (but not intransitive) verbs, and the second property of non-duality with respect to subjects (but not objects).45 This second property is shared by the Afitti suffix -t(ə)r which likewise does not occur with dual subjects.46 This is shown in Afitti field data below,47 where the suffix -t(ə)r contrasts in this respect with plural pronominal affixes 1pl ko-, 2pl o-, and 3pl -i which do occur with dual subjects.
1st person
gloss
2nd person
gloss
3rd person
gloss
ɡə́-ɡaɲal
I milk
é-ɡaɲal
you (sg.) milk
kaɲál
he/she milks
kó-ɡaɲal
we (du.) milk
ó-ɡaɲál
you (du.) milk
ɡaɲál-i
they (du.) milk
kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀
we (pl.) milk
ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀
you (pl.) milk
ɡaɲá-tər-i
they (pl.) 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 Kunuz Nubian distributive suffix -ij (duɡuːɡ ɡull-ij-ossu ‘She threw the money here and there’).49 Information on non-occurrence with dual subjects is not reported in these languages, but it appears that this is because non-duality is a feature of incremental-distributive marking as found in Nyima, and not distributive-effect marking as found in Temein and Kunuz which can even occur with a singular object, as in the Temein example.
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.
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.
The Ama suffix -ar can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks unexpected events (swāy-ɔ́ “was cultivating” → swāy-ɔ̄r-ɔ́ “was unexpectedly cultivating”, where the vowel has harmonized to the following vowel). However, this suffix is also used to disambiguate progressive verb forms from otherwise indistinguishable factatives (sāŋ-ɛ̄n/sāŋ-ɛ̄n, sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n “search (du.)”),54 providing what looks like an alternate progressive stem to take the dual suffix. Similarly, the negative imperative construction in Ama requires a progressive stem with -ar after the negative particle fá as shown in table 14 below. Inflections occurring in this construction are a plural subject marker à- on the particle, and dual or distributive marking on the verb. Only the dual suffix can occur without -ar, where in my data the dual suffix adds to the longer stem with -ar unless the short stem is suppletive (t̪ī-ə̀/túŋ “sleep,” t̪àl/tām “eat”) and can take the dual suffix without ambiguity with factative aspect.
singular
dual
distributive plural
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.
factative
progressive
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.
A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix -ɛ̄n.55 The older form of the Ama dual suffix is -ɪn,56 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.57 In Ama, its function has evolved to dual reciprocal and other dual participant readings, so for example wʊ̀s-ɛ̄n “greet (du.)” can refer to when two people greeted each other, or someone greeted two people, or two people greeted someone.58 The dual suffix is regularly used in Ama folktales to link two primary characters.59 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.
Conclusion: Ama as a Matured North Eastern Sudanic Language¶
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,”60 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.61
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.62 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.63 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.
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.64 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.
This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification in Ama verbs that supports the idea that language contact occurred. Afitti has pronominal subject markers on the verb, seen earlier in table 13, which are absent in Ama. The pronominal prefixes are not the same in form as personal pronoun words in Afitti (1sg oi but 1sg prefix kə-),65 therefore they are not incorporated versions of the current pronoun words, but rather predate them. Some of the Afitti pronoun words (1sg oi, 2sg i)66 are similar to Ama (1sg àɪ̀, 2sg ī) and must be retentions from proto-Nyima, hence the older pronominal prefixes must also be retentions in Afitti, but lost in Ama. Their loss in Ama is remarkable against the larger trend of growth in complexity of Ama verbs that we have examined in this paper. The predicted cause of this surprising reversal is pidginization under contact. That is, their loss is evidence that the Ama language was used for inter-group communication, presumably with the Kordofan Nubians, during which (and for which) Ama SOV sentences were simplified by dropping verbal subject marking. If Kordofan Nubians spoke Ama, then borrowing from Ama into Kordofan Nubian is also likely. In verbs, the obvious candidate for borrowing into Kordofan Nubian is the reciprocal suffix -in, as this is not attested elsewhere in Nubian.67 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.
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. ↩︎
Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, §4. ↩︎
de Voogt, “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology,” p. 47. ↩︎
Heine & Vossen, “Sprachtypologie,” cited in Kröger, “Typology Put to Practical Use,” p. 159. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Stevenson, Grammar of the Nyimang Language, §§2–10. ↩︎
Dimmendaal, “Introduction” to Coding Participant Marking, pp. 6–7. ↩︎
Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 174. ↩︎
Waag, The Fur Verb and Its Context, p. 49; low tone is unmarked in the Fur two-tone system. ↩︎
Jakobi, Kordofan Nubian, p. 159. Her data from Kordofan Nubian varieties shows high tone. ↩︎
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].” ↩︎
Glossing abbreviations: 1, 2, 3 – 1st, 2nd, 3rd person; acc – accusative; decl – declarative; dir – directional; distr – distributive; du – dual; ev – event; fact – factative; gen – genitive; imp – imperative; loc – locative; med – mediopassive; medcaus – mediocausative; pass – passive; pct – punctual; pl – plural; prog – progressive; pst – past; ptcp – participle; sg – singular; th – theme; top – topic; tr. – transitive; ven – ventive; ver – veridical. ↩︎
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].” ↩︎
Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177. ↩︎
Welmers, African Language Structures, pp. 346, 348. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, annex. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Greenberg, The Languages of Africa, pp. 115, 132; Bryan, “The T/K Languages”; Gilley, “Katcha Noun Morphology,” §2.5, §3, §4. ↩︎
Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, p. 299. ↩︎
Frajzyngier, “The Plural in Chadic”; Wolff, “Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.” ↩︎
Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, A Grammar of Lumun, §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains. ↩︎
Hyman & Udoh, “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.” ↩︎
Laca, “Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.” ↩︎
See, however, §4.2 below which purports to recover the missing extension. ↩︎
Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, p. 478. ↩︎
Ibid; Old Nubian also attests the lateral in a hapax form κⲁⲗ-. ↩︎
Everett, “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã.” ↩︎
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.” ↩︎
The Tama plural copula àɡ is likewise listed with low tone in Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, p. 451. ↩︎
I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ (throw-ven-du-dir) “threw to”/“is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix -ɪ́. ↩︎
de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903, which also shows a similar plural object suffix -to. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903. ↩︎
I am grateful to Alex de Voogt for sharing this data in personal communication from his field research on Afitti. ↩︎
Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. ↩︎
Abdel-Hafiz, A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian, p. 118. ↩︎
article⁄Jakobi, this issue 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. ↩︎
Dahl, The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity; Trudgill, Sociolinguistic Typology. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Norton, “Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.” ↩︎
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). ↩︎
Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains.” ↩︎
Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” pp. 34-38. ↩︎
Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177. ↩︎
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/public/article/rilly/index.html b/public/article/rilly/index.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1c8ecb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/article/rilly/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Personal Markers in Meroitic - Dotawo Journal
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/public/article/starostin/index.html b/public/article/starostin/index.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4b01938
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/article/starostin/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How To Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages - Dotawo Journal
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 Nubian1:
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.
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).
Meidob
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 Nubian4
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."5 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.
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
+www⁄Ethnologue
+and
+www⁄Glottolog
+and is often quoted as an important example of convergent linguistic processes in Africa,6 specialists in the field often remain undecided,7 and it is concluded in the most recent handbook on African linguistics that “the internal classification of Nubian remains unclear."8 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.9
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.10
Nobiin
Midob
K/D
70%
54%
Nobiin
40%
Table 2a. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob (Bechhaus-Gerst)11
Nobiin
Midob
K/D
66%
57%
Nobiin
51%
Table 2b. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob (Starostin)12
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.13 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.
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
+www⁄section 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.14 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.
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.15 The lexical items are classified into three groups:
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.16
“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.17
“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.18
“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.19
“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 deity20 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)-.21 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.”22
“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).
“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.
“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.24
“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.”
“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 uguː “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.”
“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.1. Nobiin-exclusive Items with a Nubian Etymology¶
“blood”: N díːs (= ON dis-). ◊ Related to K des, D dɛs, M tèssì “oil; liquid fat; butterʼ; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M ə̀ggə́r, B igir, Dl ogor, etc.).
(?) “earth”: N gùr (= ON gul- ~ gud-). ◊ The same word is also found in D as guː “earth, ground, floor” and in K as guː “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,25 whereas ON iskit- “earth; dust” → Nobiin ìskíːd corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.26 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
+www⁄section I.2
+(or
+www⁄I.1
+, 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 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.27 Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that ùː may well be a PN archaism retained in N.
III.2. Nobiin-exclusive Items without a Nubian Etymology¶
“dog”: N múg (= ON mug-). ◊ Not related to PN *bəl (K wel, D wɛl, M pə̀ːl, B mɛl, DL bol, etc.); no parallels in other Nubian languages.
“dry”: N sámá. ◊ Not related to K soww-od, D soww-ɛd “dry” or their cognates in Hill Nubian (Debri šua-du, etc.).
(?) “eat”: N kàb- (= ON kap-). ◊ ON shows dialectal variety: besides the more common kap-, there is also at least one hapax case of ON kal- “eat” = K/D kal. It is not entirely clear if the two roots are indeed unrelated: a scenario where ON kap-, N kàb- ← Nile-Nubian *kal-b- (cf. such derived stems as D kal-bu- pass. “be eaten,” kal-bɛːr “eat to satisfactionʼ) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D kal ← PN *kɔl has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl kol, M ə̀l- id. Regardless of etymologization, N kàb- is clearly innovative.
“fat”: N sìlèː. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages.
“fish”: N ángíssí. ◊ Replaces ON watto-; neither of the two words has any clear parallels in K/D or any other Nubian languages. A possible, though questionable, internal etymology is “living in water” (from aɲ- “to live” + *essi “water,” see notes on “water” below).
“full”: N mídd-ìr (= ON medd- ~ midd- “to be full/readyʼ). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *merid- (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure.
(?) “good”: N màs. ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent gèn (= ON gen-), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better"), is clearly cognate with D gɛn “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl ken, Debri kɛŋ “good,” etc., going back to PN *gen-. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to
+www⁄section I.1
+.
“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 darɪb28 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,29 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,30 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.).
Based on the presented data and the etymological discussion accompanying (or not accompanying) individual pieces of it, the following observations can be made:
Altogether,
+www⁄section III.2
+contains 20 items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see
+www⁄section III.3
+).
Analysis of
+www⁄section III.1
+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.
It is worth mentioning that the number of isoglosses that Nobiin shares with other branches of Nubian to the exclusion of K/D (
+www⁄section II.1
+) 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).
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:
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);
assumption of total loss of numerous Proto-Nubian basic lexical roots in all branches of Nubian except for Nobiin (19–21 possible items in
+www⁄section III.2
+). 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
+www⁄section III.2
+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.31
This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a “pre-Nile- Nubian substrate” in Nobiin by Claude Rilly,32 who, based on a general distributional analysis of Nubian lexicon, claims to identify no fewer than 51 Nobiin lexical items derived from that substrate, most of them belonging to the sphere of basic lexicon. It remains to be ascertained if all of Rillyʼs 51 items are truly unique in Nobiin (as I have already mentioned above, some of these Nobiin isolates might eventually turn out to be retentions from Proto-Nubian if future data on Hill Nubian and Midob happens to contain etymological parallels), but the fact that Rilly and the author of this paper arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other by means of somewhat different methods looks reassuring.
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.33 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):
Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages with glottochronological datings (generated by the StarlingNJ method34
If we take the glottochronological figures at face value, they imply the original separation of Proto-Nile-Nubian around three – three and a half thousand years ago, and then a further split between the ancestors of modern Nobiin and K/D around two to two and a half thousand years ago. Interestingly enough, these events are chronologically correlatable with the two main events in the history of Nile-Nubian languages according to Bechhaus-Gerst, but not quite in the way that she envisions it: her “early separation of Nobiin” becomes the early separation of Nobiin and K/D, and her “later separation of K/D” becomes “final split between Nobiin and K/D.” The interaction between Nobiin and the mysterious “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” must have therefore taken place some time in the 1st millennium CE (after the split with K/D but prior to the appearance of the first written texts in Old Nubian). Nevertheless, at this point I would like to refrain from making any definitive conclusions on probable dates and migration routes, given the possibility of alternate glottochronological models.
The other issue — linguistic identification of the “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” — is even more interesting, since its importance goes far beyond Nubian history, and its successful resolution may have direct implications for the reconstruction of the linguistic history of Africa in general. Unfortunately, at this moment one can only speculate about what that substrate might have been, or even about whether it is reasonable to speak about a single substrate or a variety of idioms that may have influenced the early independent development of Nobiin.
Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) similarities between his 51 “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” elements and other languages spoken in the region today or in antiquity, reached the conclusion that the substrate in question may have contained two layers: one related to ancient Meroitic, and still another one coming from the same Northern branch of Eastern Sudanic languages to which Nubian itself is claimed to belong.35 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,”36 unconvincing due to multiple phonetic and semantic issues at the same time.
In Jazyki Afriki, an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall,37 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
+www⁄section III.2
+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";
Additionally, Nobiin múg “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *-ŋɔk-38 and Kalenjin *ŋoːk,39 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.
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).
Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered,” p. 85. ↩︎
Bechhaus-Gerst, “Nile-Nubian Reconsidered”; Bechhaus-Gerst, Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal; Bechhaus-Gerst, The (Hi)story of Nobiin. ↩︎
Bechhaus-Gerst, Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal, p. 88. ↩︎
Bechhaus-Gerst, The (Hi)story of Nobiin, p. 22. ↩︎
E.g., Heine & Kuteva, “Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.” ↩︎
E.g., Jakobi, “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” ↩︎
Güldemann, “Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa,” p. 283. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
In this article, the following language abbreviations are used:
+B — Birgid;
+D — Dongolawi;
+Dl — Dilling;
+K — Kenuzi;
+K/D — Kenuzi-Dongolawi;
+M — Midob;
+N — Nobiin;
+ON — Old Nubian;
+PN — Proto-Nubian. ↩︎
One possible argument in this case would be to rely on data from external comparison. Thus, if we agree that Nubian belongs to the Northern branch of the Eastern Sudanic family, with the Nara language and the Taman group as its closest relatives (Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique; Starostin, Jazyki Afriki), then, in those cases where Nobiin data is opposed to the data of all other Nubian languages, it is the word that finds better etymological parallels in Nara and Tama that shouud be logically regarded as the Proto-Nubian equivalent. However, in order to avoid circularity or the additional problems that one runs into while investigating chronologically distant language relationship, I intentionally restrict the subject matter of this paper to internal Nubian data only. ↩︎
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, Jazyki Afriki, pp. 224–95. A complete 100-item wordlist reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, with detailed notes on phonetics, semantics, and distribution, is scheduled to be added to the already available annotated 100-item wordlists for ten Nubian languages, published as part of
+www⁄The Global Lexicostatistical Database
+. ↩︎
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, Jazyki Afriki. 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. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Reconstruction somewhat uncertain, but initial *ŋ- is fairly clearly indicated by the correspondences; see detailed discussion in Starostin, Jazyki Afriki, pp. 56–57. ↩︎
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). ↩︎
Hofmann, Material für eine Meroitische Grammatik, 86. ↩︎
See the detailed discussion on this phonetically unusual root in Starostin, Jazyki Afriki, p. 80. ↩︎
Bell, “Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language,” p. 10. ↩︎
Khalil, Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache, p. 124. ↩︎
In Starostin, Jazyki Afriki, p. 92 I suggest that, since the regular reflex of PN *n- in Hill Nubian is d-, both Nile-Nubian *min and all the na(i)-like forms may go back to a unique PN stem *nwV-; if so, the word should be moved to
+www⁄section I.1
+, but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
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.↩︎
Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, pp. 285–289, ↩︎
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).” ↩︎
Rilly, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, p. 285. ↩︎
Rilly, “Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan,” pp. 1181–1182. ↩︎
Thelwall, “Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka,” pp. 273–274. ↩︎
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/public/article/vangervenoei/index.html b/public/article/vangervenoei/index.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df9d118
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/article/vangervenoei/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+An Introduction to Northern East Sudanic Linguistics - Dotawo Journal