finished Starostin

content/article/starostin.md

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ More recently, however, an important and challenging hypothesis on a re-classifi
 
 
 |            | Meidob | Birgid | Kadaru | Debri | Dilling | K/D |
-| ---        | ---    | ---    | ---    | ---   | ---     | --- |
+| ---        | :---    | :---    | :---    | :---   | :---     | :--- |
 | **K/D**    | 54%     | 48%     | 58%     | 57%    | 58%      | |   
 | **Nobiin** | 40%     | 37%     | 43%     | 41%    | 43%      | 70% |
 
@@ -53,14 +53,14 @@ Let us look again more closely (table 2) at the lexicostatistical evidence, redu
 [^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% |
 
@@ -69,22 +69,33 @@ Let us look again more closely (table 2) at the lexicostatistical evidence, redu
 [^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. 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 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 (**table 3**), then we would expect a certain portion of the Swadesh wordlist in Nobiin to be represented by the following two groups of words:
+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.
 
-INSERT TABLE
+![ The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst](../static/images/bechhaus.png " The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst")
 
-**Table 3. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst**
+**Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst**
 
-Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in 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.[^10] However, if the retention or innovation in question was not accompanied by the total elimination of the root morpheme, but rather involved a semantic shift, then investigating the situation from an etymo­logical point of view may shed some significant light on the matter. In general, the more lexico­statistical discrepancies we find between Nobiin and the rest of Nubian where the Nobiin item has a Common Nubian etymology, the better the case for the "early separation of Nobiin" hypothesis; the more "strange" words we find in Nobiin whose etymological parallels in the other Nubian languages are highly questionable or non-existent, the stronger the case for the "pre-Nobiin substrate" hypothesis.
+Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in [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.
 
@@ -104,9 +115,10 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e
 
 # 100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data
 
-I. Nobiin/Kenuzi-Dongolawi Isoglosses
+## I. Nobiin/Kenuzi-Dongolawi Isoglosses
+
+### I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses {#i1}
 
-I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses
 * “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.).
@@ -162,7 +174,7 @@ I.1. General Nubian Isoglosses
 [^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
+### I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses {#i2}
 
 * “all”: N *màlléː*, K *malleː*, D *mallɛ*.
 *	“big”: N *dàwwí*, K/D *duː-l*.
@@ -179,5 +191,129 @@ I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses
 * “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,* 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, but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss.
+[^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."
+
+![Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages](../static/images/classification.png "Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages")
+
+**Fig. 2. Phylogenetic tree for the Nubian languages with glottochronological datings (generated by the StarlingNJ method[^23]**
+
+[^23]: For a detailed description of the StarlingNJ distance-based method of phylogenetic classification and linguistic dating, see Kassian, "Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus)."
+
+If we take the glottochronological figures at face value, they imply the original separation of Proto-Nile-Nubian around three – 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).

content/journal/index.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-title: Dotawo Journal
+title: Dotawo - A Journal of Nubian Studies
 has_issues: ["dotawo7.md"]
 ---