final corrections

content/article/jakobi.md

@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ Due to their poor documentation, the nearly extinct Birgid language of Darfur an
 
 A causative extension is a valency-increasing morphological device adding an argument with the role of causer to an intransitive or transitive clause. When the causative extension is suffixed to an intransitive verb base, it derives a transitive stem, the former intransitive subject being assigned the role of causer. When the causative suffix is attached to a transitive base, it derives a ditransitive verb. While the former transitive subject is assigned the role of causee, the former transitive object retains the role of patient. In the Nubian languages, the causative extension on a transitive verb base allows two object arguments, as shown in (7), (46), and (50).
 
-## The Causative *\*-(i)r* Extension
+## The Causative *\*-(i)r*-Extension
 
 The *\*-(i)r*-extension has reflexes in all Nubian languages considered in this study. However, there is ample evidence that, due to semantic bleaching, the assumed original causative function has faded away, so that reflexes of the *\*-(i)r*-extension have become redundant or lexicalized features of many verbs. In the Kordofan Nubian languages, by contrast, the *\*-(i)r*-extension has gained new functions, as it serves as intransitivizer and even as singular stem marker.
 
@@ -262,11 +262,11 @@ As in Mattokki, Andaandi *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* is attached to intransitive verb ba
 {{< /gloss >}}
 
 {{< gloss "(35)" >}}
-{g} *tokkon*,[proh]({sc})|*dungi=gi*,money=[acc]({sc})|*dab-ir-men*,disappear-[caus-neg.2sg]({sc})|
+{g} *tokkon*,[proh]({sc})|*dungi=gi*,money=[acc]({sc})|*dab-ir-men*,disappear-[caus-neg]({sc})|
 {r} “don’t lose the money”
 {{< /gloss >}}
 
-Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] [1sg]({sc}) form. Also this morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir > -ir-ri > ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension.
+Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] [1sg]({sc}) form. Also this morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [boogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir → -ir-ri → ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r*-morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension.
 
 [^55]:  Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2865 and §3718.
 [^56]:  “Neutral” is a tentative term for a (non-preterite, non-negative) suffix which in previous studies has been called “present tense.” The term “imperfective” is probably more appropriate.
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ Second, Tagle *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* is attested on some transitive verbs, but not
 
 This contrast of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* versus *‑er ~ ‑ɛr* is attested by a few Tagle verbs only. It is more common in combination with *‑ig,* forming the valency-increasing extensions *‑ɪg-ɪr ~ ‑ɪg-ɛr,* as shown in [2.2](#22).
 
-The Karko reflex of the causative *\*‑(i)r*-extension has an unspecified vowel *V* which adopts the quality of the root vowel, as is common in Karko suffixes having a short vowel. The causative extension can therefore be represented as *‑(V)r.* It has the same segmental structure as the plural stem extension *‑(V)r* discussed in [6.3](#63) which precedes the causative suffix. In the following examples the object noun phrase *ɕə̄kə̄l* “gazelle” has the role of patient, occuring in singular form. Because of the generic reading of *ɕə̄kə̄l,* the verb requires to be realized by a plural stem.
+The Karko reflex of the causative *\*‑(i)r*-extension has an unspecified vowel *V* which adopts the quality of the root vowel, as is common in Karko suffixes having a short vowel. The causative extension can therefore be represented as *‑(V)r.* It has the same segmental structure as the plural stem extension *‑(V)r* discussed in [6.3](#63) which precedes the causative suffix. In the following examples the object noun phrase *ɕə̄kə̄l* “gazelle” has the role of patient, occurring in singular form. Because of the generic reading of *ɕə̄kə̄l,* the verb requires to be realized by a plural stem.
 
 {{< gloss "(45)" >}}
 {r} **Karko**
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ In addition to deriving transitive from intransitive verbs, Midob *‑(i)r* can
 
 In terms of its valency-increasing function, Midob *‑(i)r* is comparable to the extension *‑ée-k ~ -èe-k* ([2.2](#22)).
 
-## The Causative *\*‑(i)gir* Extension {#22}
+## The Causative *\*‑(i)gir*-Extension {#22}
 
 As suggested by the voiced or voiceless velar stop, [g] or [k] and the close phonological similarity among the causative morphemes displayed in **Table 5**, all Nubian languages considered in this paper have retained a reflex of the causative extension *\*-(i)gir.* Presumably this extension originated from the lexical verb *kir* “make” which, due to grammaticalization, emerged as a valency-increasing auxiliary-like verb in a converb construction (attested in Nobiin), and finally as a causative derivational suffix on verbs. In the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob *\*-(i)gir* is re-analyzed as a complex morpheme. In Dilling and Tagle it has split up into two extensions which are sensitive to a singular and a plural object, respectively.
 
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ The causative function of Tagle *‑ɪ́g-ɪ́r* and *‑ɪ́g-ɛ́r* can be dem
 {{< /gloss >}}
 
 {{< gloss "(80)" >}}
-{g} *ùníì=n*,people=[gen]({sc})|*ʊ́r-ʌ́nɪ́=gɪ́*,head-[pl=acc]({sc})|*tɔ́ɔ́*,up|*ʃɔ́k-ɪ́g-ɛ́r-ɪ̀*,raise-[caus-plr-imp.2sg]({sc})|
+{g} *ùníì=n*,[2pl.gen]({sc}).people=[gen]({sc})|*ʊ́r-ʌ́nɪ́=gɪ́*,head-[pl=acc]({sc})|*tɔ́ɔ́*,up|*ʃɔ́k-ɪ́g-ɛ́r-ɪ̀*,raise-[caus-plr-imp.2sg]({sc})|
 {r} “raise your people’s heads!”
 {{< /gloss >}}
 
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ Whereas the causative extensions in the Nile Nubian and Kordofan Nubian language
 
 [^90]:  The reconstructed PN lexical items are drawn from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 273, the corresponding Midob items from Werner’s Midob–English vocabulary in *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 75–143.
 
-As a result of the preceding considerations, the Midob causative suffix *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is assumed to originate from a complex morpheme composed of *\*‑ir* and *\*‑(i)g,* that is, from a metathesized form of *\*‑(i)g-ir.* The question what motivated this morphotactic change cannot be answered presently.
+As a result of the preceding considerations, the Midob causative suffix *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is assumed to originate from a complex morpheme composed of *\*‑ir* and *\*‑(i)g,* that is, from a metathesized form of *\*‑(i)gir.* The question what motivated this morphotactic change cannot be answered presently.
 
 # The Applicative {#3}
 
@@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ It is assumed that originally each of the Nubian languages considered in this pa
 
 [^91]:  Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 443.
 
-This distinction is still reflected in Nile Nubian. In the languages of the western branch, however, the system is more complex because of the morphological blending of the two donative verbs. The resulting new donative verb is employed in non-imperative applicative forms ([3.4](#34)). In imperative applicative forms, by contrast, at least in Karko and Dilling, two distinct donative verbs are used (see [3.5](#35)).
+This distinction is still reflected in Nile Nubian. In the languages of the western branch, however, the system is more complex because of the morphological blending of the two donative verbs. The resulting new donative verb is employed in non-imperative applicative forms ([3.4](#34)). In imperative applicative forms, by contrast, at least in Karko and Dilling, the two distinct donative verbs are used (see [3.5](#35)).
 
 **Table 6** shows that the Kordofan Nubian languages exhibit some unexpected reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen*. Tagle *tí* and Karko *tìì* and *tèn* exhibit an initial alveolar stop. The realization of the initial consonant of Dilling *tir* and *tin* is not known, because the Dilling data are drawn from Kauczor’s grammar which fails to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops – although the phonemic opposition between the dental and alveolar place of articulation is a characteristic of the Kordofan Nubian languages. For this reason, we can only assume that the two donative verbs in Dilling have an initial alveolar stop *t,* just like the Karko items and the single Tagle “give” shown in **Table 6**.[^93]
 
@@ -1333,7 +1333,7 @@ In Karko, the *\*‑(i)j*-extension is realized as voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] a
 {r} “swallow the pebbles!”
 {{< /gloss >}}
 
-In the Kordofan Nubian languages like Karko, the pluractional extension is selected by the plural object (patient) in a transitive clause like (177) and also by the plural direct object (theme) in a ditransitive clause, as shown in (179). This patterning of the transitive patient with the ditransitive theme – but not with the indirect object, the beneficiary – is known as the indirect-object construction.[^191]
+In the Kordofan Nubian languages like Karko, the pluractional extension is selected by the plural object (patient) in a transitive clause like (177) and by the plural direct object (theme) in a ditransitive clause, as shown in (179). This patterning of the transitive patient with the ditransitive theme – but not with the indirect object, the beneficiary – is known as the indirect-object construction.[^191]
 
 [^191]:  Haspelmath, “Ditransitive Constructions.”
 
@@ -1478,7 +1478,7 @@ According to Dimmendaal’s typological study, the archaic causative *\*i*-prefi
 
 ## The Causative Prefix in the Nubian Languages {#51}
 
-Me’en, Majang, Kipsigiis, and Ma’di have retained reflexes of the causative prefix with the original high front vowel *i ~ ɪ.* This V-shaped prefix is retained both in Nubian and Ama although it has undergone vowel shifts. In the Nubian languages, this shift has resulted in the emergence of an *\*u- ~ o-* prefix, in Ama the shift has led to the prefix *a-* (see [5.2](#52)). The reconstructed Nubian vowels *\*u ~ o* can be identified as prefixes because they are all associated with transitive verb stems which contrast with the phonologically and semantically similar intransitive verb stems that do not exhibit an initial vowel. The small number of these derived transitive verbs and the lack of productivity of the vowel prefix suggest that they are a remnant of the archaic causative *\*i*-prefix.
+Me’en, Majang, Kipsigiis, and Ma’di have retained reflexes of the causative prefix with the original high front vowel *i ~ ɪ.* This V-shaped prefix is retained both in Nubian and Ama although it has undergone vowel shifts. In the Nubian languages, this shift has resulted in the emergence of an *\*u- ~ o-*prefix, in Ama the shift has led to the prefix *a-* (see [5.2](#52)). The reconstructed Nubian vowels *\*u ~ o* can be identified as prefixes because they are all associated with transitive verb stems which contrast with the phonologically and semantically similar intransitive verb stems that do not exhibit an initial vowel. The small number of these derived transitive verbs and the lack of productivity of the vowel prefix suggest that they are a remnant of the archaic causative *\*i*-prefix.
 
 Prefixes are rare in the Nubian languages. Another instance of a petrified prefix is the verbal negation marker *\*m-,*[^203] which is attested in all Nubian languages: e.g., Old Nubian ⲙ-ⲟⲛ, ⲙ-ⲟⲩⲛ “hate, reject, be reluctant” vs. ⲟⲛ, ⲟⲩⲛ “love,” Nobiin *m-éskìr* “be unable” vs. *éské* “be able.” In Dilling, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /b/: *b-or-di* “barren” vs. *ir* “give birth.” In Midob, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /p/: *p-óon-hèm* “I hated, refused, rejected” vs. *óo-hêm* (< *óonhèm*) “I loved.” As the prefixing pattern strongly deviates from the predominantly suffixing pattern, which is now typical of all Nubian languages, it suggests that a restructuring process has taken place.
 
@@ -1664,7 +1664,7 @@ Apart from *‑dakk ~ ‑takk,* Nobiin has another passive extension, *-daŋ,* w
 | (219) | *nuluu-aŋ*     | “become white”	 | *nuluu-d-aŋ* | “be whitened” |
 | (220) | *nadiif-aŋ*    | “become clean”  | *nadiif-d-aŋ* | “be cleaned” |
 
-However, this hypothesis is not convincing unless we can corroborate the existence of a *d-* prefix. Moreover, (221), a translation of Mark 2:27, suggests that *-dakk* and *-daŋ* are simply variants of the same extension. A more literal translation of this example should read: “The Sabbath was made because of man, man was not made because of Sabbath.”[^228]
+However, this hypothesis is not convincing unless we can corroborate the existence of a *d-*prefix. Moreover, (221), a translation of Mark 2:27, suggests that *-dakk* and *-daŋ* are simply variants of the same extension. A more literal translation of this example should read: “The Sabbath was made because of man, man was not made because of Sabbath.”[^228]
 
 [^228]: Example from  Werner, p.c., October 2020.
 
@@ -1726,7 +1726,7 @@ Reinisch’s second hypothesis is supported by Armbruster, who suggests, too, th
 [^238]: Smagina, *The Old Nubian Language,* p. 43.
 [^239]:  Van Gerven Oei, p.c., September 2020.
 
-Given the fact that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and Old Nubian -ⲧⲁⲕ have a CVC-shape suggests that they originate from a verb root, similar to the CVC-shaped causative and applicative extensions, *\*-(i)gir* and *\*-tir,* which stem from the verbs *gir* “make” and *tir* “give to 2nd or 3rd person.” The Nobiin and Mattokki extensions *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* may owe their final geminated *kk* and their CVCC-shape to a lexical CVC-shaped root incremented by a velar stop. Perhaps this stop can be identified as the plural stem extension *–k.* Its function in this context is, however, unclear ([4.2](#42)).
+Given the fact that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and Old Nubian -ⲧⲁⲕ have a CVC-shape suggests that they originate from a verb root, similar to the CVC-shaped causative and applicative extensions, *\*-(i)gir* and *\*-tir,* which stem from the verbs *gir ~ kir* “make” and *tir* “give to 2nd or 3rd person.” The Nobiin and Mattokki extensions *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* may owe their final geminated *kk* and their CVCC-shape to a lexical CVC-shaped root incremented by a velar stop. Perhaps this stop can be identified as the plural stem extension *–k.* Its function in this context is, however, unclear ([4.2](#42)).
 
 Passive markers often have a verbal origin, as shown by the English *be-* and *get*-passives and the German *werden*-passive. Therefore, we follow Reinisch’s and Armbruster’s suggestions assuming that the passive extensions originate from two semantically related verbs, “wrap, wind” and “be covered.” It is conceivable that Andaandi *-katt* originates from *kant* “wrap, wind,” a verb attested both in Nobiin and Andaandi,[^240] particularly because the gemination of *tt* resulting from the regressive assimilation of *n* to *t* is also attested in the lexical variants *sunti* and *sutti* “hoof, fingernail.”[^241]
 
@@ -2133,7 +2133,7 @@ Suggesting that the Old Nubian and Nobiin *‑a*-suffix is a converb marker and
 
 Unlike the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages, applicatives in the Kordofan Nubian and Midob form monoverbal constructions, since “give” has become a derivational morpheme being suffixed to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *‑(i)n*. This means that in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the development of “give” as a bound derivational morpheme has reached a further stage on the grammaticalization path than “give” in the Nile Nubian converb constructions. At least in Andaandi, the auxiliary-like “give” verb is a free form which can be separated from the preceding lexical verb by means of the question clitic *te.*
 
-Verbal number plays an important role, as it can express event number and participant number. The pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* for instance, conveys event plurality associated with various aspectual notions. In Andaandi, Dilling, and Midob it expresses intensive and repetitive actions, in Tagle repetitive and continued actions, and in Mattokki distributive events. It also has morphosyntactic functions, as indicated by the interaction between the *-\*(i)j*-marked verb stems and the plural subject in intransitive clauses or the plural object in transitive clauses. In ditransitive applicative constructions the reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is selected by the plural indirect object (i.e., the beneficiary), as attested in the Old Nubian example (144). In Kordofan Nubian ditransitive applicative constructions, however, it is the plural direct object (i.e., the theme) which selects a reflex of *\*‑(i)j,* as shown in the Karko example (179). In transitive clauses *\*‑(i)j* is sensitive to the plural object (patient), as shown in the Old Nubian example (154) and Karko example (177). Thus, the selection of the *\*‑(i)j* extension provides evidence of two patterns of alignment. Whereas the patient aligns with the beneficiary in Old Nubian, in Karko the patient aligns with the theme. These two patterns are known as secondary-object construction and indirect-object construction, respectively.[^287]
+Verbal number plays an important role, as it can express event number and participant number. The pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* for instance, conveys event plurality associated with various aspectual notions. In Andaandi, Dilling, and Midob it expresses intensive and repetitive actions, in Tagle repetitive and continued actions, and in Mattokki distributive events. It also has morphosyntactic functions, as indicated by the interaction between the *-\*(i)j*-marked verb stems and the plural subject in intransitive clauses or the plural object in transitive clauses. In ditransitive applicative constructions the reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is selected by the plural indirect object (i.e., the beneficiary), as attested in the Old Nubian example (144). In Kordofan Nubian ditransitive applicative constructions, however, it is the plural direct object (i.e., the theme) which selects a reflex of *\*‑(i)j,* as shown in the Karko example (179). In transitive clauses *\*‑(i)j* is sensitive to the plural object (patient), as shown in the Old Nubian example (154) and Karko example (177). Thus, the selection of the *\*‑(i)j*-extension provides evidence of two patterns of alignment. Whereas the patient aligns with the beneficiary in Old Nubian, in Karko the patient aligns with the theme. These two patterns are known as secondary-object construction and indirect-object construction, respectively.[^287]
 
 [^287]: Haspelmath, “Ditransitive Constructions,” Jakobi, Ibrahim & Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.”
 

content/article/starostin.md

@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
 * “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.
+* “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-*.
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
 * “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?).
+* “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.).
 
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ The aspect of chronology has previously been discussed in glottochronological te
 
 [^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.
+If we take the glottochronological figures at face value, they imply the original separation of Proto-Nile-Nubian around three to three and a half thousand years ago, and then a further split between the ancestors of modern Nobiin and K/D around two to two and a half thousand years ago. Interestingly enough, these events are chronologically correlatable with the two main events in the history of Nile-Nubian languages according to Bechhaus-Gerst, but not quite in the way that she envisions it: her "early separation of Nobiin" becomes the early separation of Nobiin and K/D, and her "later separation of K/D" becomes "final split between Nobiin and K/D.” The interaction between Nobiin and the mysterious "pre-Nile-Nubian substrate" must have therefore taken place some time in the 1st millennium CE (after the split with K/D but prior to the appearance of the first written texts in Old Nubian). Nevertheless, at this point I would like to refrain from making any definitive conclusions on probable dates and migration routes, given the possibility of alternate glottochronological models.
 
 The other issue — linguistic identification of the “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” — is even more interesting, since its importance goes far beyond Nubian history, and its successful resolution may have direct implications for the reconstruction of the linguistic history of Africa in general. Unfortunately, at this moment one can only speculate about what that substrate might have been, or even about whether it is reasonable to speak about a single substrate or a variety of idioms that may have influenced the early independent development of Nobiin.
 
@@ -297,10 +297,10 @@ In *Языки Африки,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding
 * *kìd* “stone” — cf. Luo *kidi*, Shilluk *kit*, etc. “stone”;
 * *ɟèlèw* “tail” — cf. Nuer *ɟual*, Dinka *yɔl*, Mabaan *yilɛ*, etc. “tail.”
 
-Additionally, Nobiin *múg* “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *\*-ŋɔk-*[^27] and Kalenjin *\*ŋoːk*,[^28] assuming the possibility of assimilation (*\*ŋ- - m-* before a following labial vowel in Nobiin). These parallels, although still sparse, constitute by far the largest single group of matches between the "pre-Nile Nubian substrate" and a single linguistic family (Nilotic), making this line of future research seem promising for the future — although they neither conclusively prove the Nilotic nature of this substrate, nor eliminate the possibility of several substrate layers with different affiliation.
+Additionally, Nobiin *múg* “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *\*-ŋɔk-*[^27] and Kalenjin *\*ŋoːk*,[^28] assuming the possibility of assimilation (*\*ŋ- > m-* before a following labial vowel in Nobiin). These parallels, although still sparse, constitute by far the largest single group of matches between the "pre-Nile Nubian substrate" and a single linguistic family (Nilotic), making this line of future research seem promising for the future — although they neither conclusively prove the Nilotic nature of this substrate, nor eliminate the possibility of several substrate layers with different affiliation.
 
 [^26]:  Thelwall, "Lexicostatistical Relations be­twe­en Nu­bian, Daju and Dinka,” pp. 273–274.
-[^27]:  Vossem, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354.
+[^27]:  Voßen, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354.
 [^28]:  Rottland, *Die Südnilotischen Sprachen,* p. 390.
 
 In any case, the main point of this paper is not so much to shed light on the origin of substrate elements in Nobiin as it is to show that pure lexicostatistics, when applied to complex cases of language relationship, may reveal anomalies that can only be resolved by means of a careful etymological analysis of the accumulated evidence. It is entirely possible that advanced character-based phylogenetic methods might offer additional insight into this problem, but ultimately it all comes down to resolving the problem by means of manual searching for cognates, albeit without forgetting about statistical grounding of the conclusions.