Ama is a Northern East Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north-west of Dilling, near to where Kordofan Nubian languages are spoken in the north-western Nuba Mountains. “Ama” (ámá “people”) is the self-designated name of the language community identified by the ISO639-3 code [nyi] and replaces the name “Nyimang” in older sources, 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.
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, but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in Table 1.
A brief overview of Ama morphosyntax can be gained by locating it in the typology of Heine and Voßen, 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. However, case is extensive in Ama, as is typical of Nilo-Saharan verb-final languages, 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, 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). The form of the Ama coverb suffix -ɛ̄n matches the Fur coverb suffix -ɛn ~ -ɛŋ. 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.
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).
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).
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. 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,” such that it has a past perfective reading when used for an active verb like “eat,” but a present continuous reading when used for a stative verb like “know.” The other stem has a present progressive reading, which is marginal for stative verbs (as indicated by “?”) where the meaning contribution of progressive to an already continuous verb is highly marked. 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.
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. CVC is also the predominant shape in the following comparative data for verbs across Northern branches of Eastern Sudanic.
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. 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. In Leggbo, 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, 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. However, some progressive marking is found in irregular alternations that reveal former pluractional stems.
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.
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. Everett’s approach remains highly controversial, 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. 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:
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:
In passive and in past, affix order also varies according to aspect with respect to the dual suffix -ɛ̄n:
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.
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, via the shift from pluractional to progressive (§⁄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. These extensions are particularly comparable with Nubian and other related languages.
Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural participant (distributivity implies plurality but is distinct from it), which distinguishes them from plural-object pluractionals found in many Nubian languages that mark, and are thus obligatory with, plural objects. Distributives are also characterized by non-occurrence with dual participants (to be non-trivial, distribution requires at least three targets). 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). This second property is shared by the Afitti suffix -t(ə)r which likewise does not occur with dual subjects. This is shown in Afitti field data below, 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.
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, and although palatals are a difficult area for establishing wider sound correspondences, the palatal arises in the plausible conditioning environment of a high front vowel.
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.
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,” 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.
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. 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. 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. 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-), 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) 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. 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.
Heine, Bernd & Rainer Voßen. “Sprachtypologie.” In Die Sprachen Afrikas, edited by Bernd Heine, Thilo Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981: pp. 407–444.
Jakobi, Angelika. Kordofan Nubian: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study. Unpublished manuscript, 2013.
Trudgill, Peter. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
article⁄Nubian Verb Extensions and Some Nyima Correspondences
abstract⁄Having a historical-comparative approach this paper is concerned with the reconstruction of some Proto-Nubian derivational morphemes comprising two causatives, two applicatives, and two suffixes deriving verbal plural stems, as well as a now defunct causative prefix. When discussing applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages, it is argued that they involve converbs, i.e., dependent verbs, which in Old Nubian and Nobiin are marked by the suffix -a. This verbal suffix is considered to be distinct from the homophonous predicate marker -a which occurs as a clitic on various other hosts. The paper also points out that some of the Nubian verb extensions correspond to Nyima (mostly Ama) extensions, thus providing strong evidence of the genetic relationship between Nubian and Nyima. Perhaps the most striking evidence of Nubian–Ama relations and the coherence of the Nilo-Saharan phylum as a whole is provided by the archaic Nilo-Saharan *ɪ-. The reflexes of this prefix in Nubian and Ama, along with the archaic Nubian prefix *m-, which serves as verbal negation marker, supports Dimmendaal’s hypothesis that these languages have undergone a restructuring process from originally prefixing to predominantly suffixing languages.
keywords⁄Nubian, comparative linguistics, Nyima, Northern East Sudanic
1. Introduction¶
Since Greenberg’s classification of the African languages there is agreement that the Nubian languages belong to East Sudanic, the largest subgroup of the Nilo-Saharan phylum. According to Bender, Dimmendaal, and Blench, East Sudanic (also known as Eastern Sudanic) is divided into a northern and a southern branch. The northern branch comprises Nubian as well as the Taman languages of Darfur and Wadai, the Nyima languages of the Nuba Mountains, and Nara on the Sudanese–Eritrean border. Rilly, in his historical-comparative study, argues that the extinct language of the Meroitic Empire is also part of the northern branch. The southern branch consists of Berta, Jebel, Daju, Temeinian, Surmic, and Nilotic. This subclassification is, however, disputed. Ehret and Starostin, for instance, suggest that Ama (referred to by the term Nyimang) is genetically closer to Temeinian and hence part of the southern – rather than the northern – branch of East Sudanic.
In contrast to Ehret’s and Starostin’s subgrouping, the present paper will provide evidence of some verb extensions shared by Nyima and the Nubian languages. They demonstrate the genetic links between these languages and therefore support Bender’s and Dimmendaal’s classification of Nyima as a member of the northern East Sudanic subgroup. Although Ehret, in his historical-comparative study of Nilo-Saharan languages, tries to identify verb extensions, too, his claimed reconstructions lack corroborating evidence because he does not provide contrastive examples of extended and unextended verb stems.
According to Rilly, the Nubian language family has two main branches, Nile Nubian, and western Nubian. Nile Nubian comprises the medieval Old Nubian language as well as Nobiin (also known by the alternative names Mahas and Fadicca), Mattokki (Kunuz, Kunuzi, Kenzi), and Andaandi (Dongolese, Dongolawi). The western branch comprises the cluster of Kordofan Nubian languages spoken in the northern Nuba Mountains, as well as the Nubian languages of Darfur, Midob, and the nearly extinct Birgid (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Family tree model of the Nubian languages
Map 1 below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyima group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan.
Map 1. The northern Nuba Mountains
Probably due to frequent contact between speakers of Nyima and speakers of Kordofan Nubian languages, there is some lexical evidence of sound–meaning correspondences between these languages. Considering i) the close phonetic similarities between the Ama, Mandal, and Afitti items on the one hand and Kordofan Nubian items on the other; and ii) the less close resemblance between Ama, Mandal, and Afitti and the corresponding Nile Nubian (NN) items, Rottland and Jakobi have interpreted this constellation as evidence of lexical borrowing, with Kordofan Nubian as the source of the borrowings. Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate this point: Table 1 shows that the phonetic similarities between the Ama and Mandal items and their Proto-Kordofan Nubian (PKN) counterparts are closer than those between Ama, Mandal, and the corresponding Nile Nubian items.
Ama |
Mandal |
PKN |
NN |
Gloss |
burgɔ̀l “thief” |
borgòl “thief” |
*borg- |
maag- (An), mark- (No) |
steal |
kwɔrʃè, kɔrʃè |
kwarʃè |
*korʃu |
gorij (An), gorjo (No) |
six |
tājò |
tāj |
*tɛj(j)ɛ |
dessi (An, No) |
green, unripe |
Table 1. Ama – Mandal – PKN correspondences
Examples of the close sound and meaning correspondences between Afitti and Proto-Kordofan Nubian are shown in Table 2. Even though a specific Kordofan Nubian variety cannot be identified as the donor language, the obvious phonetic resemblances suggest that the lexical items in Afitti originate from a Kordofan Nubian, rather than from a Nile Nubian language.
Afitti |
PKN |
NN |
Gloss |
tɔ̀rɛ |
*toaɽa |
norɛ (An), noree (No) |
termite |
fàrsɛˑn, fàrsɛ |
*farʃ- |
barsi (An, No) |
twin |
t̪ɔndɔˑ |
*tondo |
dungur (An), dungir (No) |
blind |
Table 2. Afitti–PKN correspondences
The striking Ama and Afitti similarities with the corresponding Kordofan Nubian items also indicate that borrowing into the Nyima languages has occurred rather recently, after Kordofan Nubian had split off from the other branches of the Nubian family.
However, the correspondences between the verb extensions in Nubian and Ama (Table 3), which are the focus of this paper, suggest a different historical interpretation, namely as evidence of their remote genetic relationship. This assumption, which will be corroborated in detail below, is based on the correspondences between the Proto-Nubian causative *u- ~ o-prefix, which is comparable to the Ama causative a-prefix, and the Proto-Nubian causative suffix *-(i)gir, corresponding to the Ama directional/causative suffix -ɪg ~ -ɛg. In addition, there are two pairs of phonetically and semantically very similar verb extensions, which have a limited distribution in the Nubian group. They comprise the Kordofan Nubian reciprocal -in vs. the Ama dual -ɪn, as well as Midob -íd vs. Ama -ɪ́d̪. Another set of corresponding extensions (not shown in Table 3) includes the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural -er as well as the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object suffix -ir or -(i)r-ir and the Ama distributional suffix -r.
Nubian |
|
Ama |
|
causative prefix |
PN *u- ~ o- |
causative prefix |
*a- |
causative |
PN *-(i)g-ir |
directional, causative |
-ɪg, -ɛg |
reciprocal |
KN -in |
dual |
-ɪn |
pluractional |
Mi -íd |
distributive, pluractional |
-ɪ́d̪ |
Table 3. Comparable Nubian and Ama verb extensions
Presumably, the Ama inceptive -ɪŋ is cognate with the Nubian inchoative morphemes which comprise Old Nubian -ⲁⳟ, Nobiin -aŋ, Mattokki and Andaandi -an, as well as Dilling -ŋ. The inchoative -an of the Nilotic languages Bari and Lotuko is obviously related, as well. As these suffixes mainly derive verbs from qualifiers and nouns, rather than from verbal bases, they are excluded from further consideration in the present paper.
Reconstructable lexical and grammatical items are indicators of a normal generational transmission. They are often conceived as indicators of a continuous divergent development from the assumed proto-language to its daughter languages, the gradual divergence being depicted with a family tree model. However, such tree diagrams can account neither for diffusion or convergence between genetically related languages, nor for language contact that may have induced changes such as borrowings and other instances of interference. Evidence of contact-induced changes calls for a historical interpretation and for the identification of the donor language, as illustrated by the Ama and Afitti lexical items adopted from Kordofan Nubian (Tables 1 and 2). Another case in point is the so-called pre-Nile Nubian substrate. It comprises several basic lexical items in Old Nubian and Nobiin which do not have cognates in the other Nubian languages. Rilly supposes that they originate from other northern East Sudanic languages.
Evidence of the genetic relationship among the Nubian languages has mostly been provided by comparing lexical data. In their historical-comparative studies, Zyhlarz, Bechhaus-Gerst, Jakobi, and Rilly have mainly focused on the reconstruction of Proto-Nubian lexical items and the phoneme system. So far, grammatical morphemes, particularly verb extensions, have not been considered in these studies, although such bound morphemes are generally assumed to be better indicators of genetic coherence.
According to Dimmendaal, “[v]erbal derivation in the Nilo-Saharan languages commonly involves valency-changing operations such as causative, middle voice, antipassive, or pluractional and ventive marking.” However, the Nubian languages deviate from this pattern since dedicated markers for middle voice, antipassive, or ventive are unattested.
The present paper will show in detail that Proto-Nubian had seven verbal derivational devices: two causative suffixes (§⁄2.1 and §⁄2.2); two applicatives (§⁄3.3 to §⁄3.5); two verbal number suffixes (§⁄4.1 and §⁄4.2); and a causative prefix (§⁄5). The section on the applicatives (§⁄3) is extensive because it will show that two donative verbs can be used as independent lexical verbs and also as valency-increasing devices. I will argue that applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages are realized as converb constructions rather than as derivational suffixes, the latter being attested in the western branch of the Nubian family.
Whereas the derivational devices which are found in both branches of the Nubian language group can be reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, there are further verb extensions with a more limited distribution. The Nile Nubian languages, for instance, have passive extensions (§⁄6.1); Mattokki and Andaandi exhibit a plural object extension (§⁄6.2); and a plural stem extension is attested in Kordofan Nubian and Midob (§⁄6.3). A reciprocal suffix (§⁄6.4) as well as some plural stem extensions occur in Kordofan Nubian (§⁄6.5). Kordofan Nubian and Midob, meanwhile, exhibit a valency-decreasing suffix (§⁄6.6). Moreover, in Midob a distinct pluractional extension is found (§⁄6.7).
Ama, too, has a rather rich inventory of derivational extensions. It has suffixes for passive, ventive, directional/causative (§⁄5.2); mediocausative, reciprocal, distributive (§⁄6.3); pluractional; and dual (§⁄6.4). In addition, Ama has a causative prefix (§⁄5.2). The range of Afitti verb extensions, however, is still little known.
The Ama data are drawn from Stevenson’s survey of the Nuba Mountain languages, Tucker & Bryan’s grammatical sketch of the Nyima group, which is based on Stevenson’s fieldwork data, and additional work by Rottland, Jakobi, Stevenson, and Norton.
The Old Nubian data mostly come from the legend of Saint Mina but also from a few other sources quoted from Van Gerven Oei’s forthcoming comprehensive Old Nubian grammar.
Due to their poor documentation, the nearly extinct Birgid language of Darfur and the extinct Nubian language of Jebel Haraza are not considered in the present contribution.
2. The Causative¶
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).
2.1. 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.
The initial segment of the *-(i)r-extension is an epenthetic vowel, which is required to prevent unadmitted consonant sequences when *-(i)r is attached to a consonant-final root.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
*-(i)r |
-(ⲁ)ⲣ, -ⲣ̄, -(ⲟⲩ)ⲣ |
-ir |
-ir, -ur |
-ir, -ur |
-ir |
-ir |
-(V)r |
-(i)r |
Table 4. The causative extension *-(i)r
The Old Nubian -(i)r-extension has two variants, -ar and -ur, which are often conditioned by anticipatory assimilation to the quality of the preceding vowel(s) of the root. The extension can attach to nouns and verbs. In combination with a noun the extension derives transitive verbs.
Old Nubian |
Nouns |
|
Verbs |
|
(1) |
ⲟⲩⲗⲅ |
“ear” |
ⲟⲩⲗⲅ-ⲣ̄ |
“listen” |
(2) |
ⲕⲓⲧⲧ |
“garment” |
ⲕⲓⲧ-ⲣ̄ |
“clothe” |
(3) |
ⲥⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲧ |
“foundation” |
ⲥⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲧ-ⲣ̄ |
“found” |
Although Van Gerven Oei conceives -(i)r as a “transitive” suffix which is used “to make an intransitive verb transitive,” -(i)r can be shown to add an argument with the role of causer to the base verb. Moreover, it is not restricted to intransitive verbs but also found on transitive bases such as ⲟⲟⲕ and ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ deriving ditransitive stems. For this reason, -(i)r behaves like a typical causative extension and should be referred to by the term causative.
|
|
|
|
|
(4) |
ⲡⲁⲗ |
“come out” itr |
ⲡⲉⲗ-ⲣ̄ |
“release” tr |
(5) |
ⲟⲟⲕ |
“call” tr |
ⲟⲟⲕ-ⲣ̄ |
“cause to call” ditr, “have called” |
(6) |
ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ |
“learn” tr |
ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ-ⲣ̄ |
“teach” ditr |
The ditransitive construction derived by the causative -(i)r-extension on the verb ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ “learn” can be illustrated by the following example. Assigning the role of causer to the addressee of the request, the causative of the transitive verb allows two accusative-marked arguments, the first being assigned the role of causee and the second the role of patient.
ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲟⲛⲱ ϣⲟⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗⲓⲣⲉⲥⲟ
koull-ir-e-so
learn-caus-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm
“Teach me the book” (gr 2.4)
(7)
Browne points out that the “causative element may be weakened and become apparently redundant,” that is, some verbs can occur with or without the -(i)r-suffix without a change in their meaning.
The Nobiin -(i)r-extension can derive transitive and ditransitive stems when it attaches to intransitive and transitive bases, respectively.
|
Nobiin |
|
|
|
(8) |
karj-e |
“ripen” itr |
karj-ir-e |
“cook” tr |
(9) |
naaf-e |
“be hidden” itr |
naaf-ir-e |
“hide” tr |
(10) |
jad-e |
“suck” tr |
jad-ir-e |
“suckle” ditr |
Werner does not comment on Lepsius’s data, nor does he provide evidence in his Nobiin grammar of such derived transitive and ditransitive verbs. However, his verb paradigms indicate that – unlike transitive verbs – intransitive verbs never take the -(i)r-extension in their unmarked 2sg imperative forms. The absence of -(i)r is, no doubt, due to the original restriction of -(i)r to transitive and ditransitive verbs.
|
|
|
(11) |
nèer |
“sleep!” |
(12) |
àag |
“sit!” |
(13) |
kîr |
“come!” |
(14) |
júù |
“go!” |
(15) |
fîyy |
“lie (down)!” |
2sg imperative forms of transitive verbs, by contrast, can be assigned to two groups, a group characterized by the -(i)r-extension and another group which does not exhibit this extension.
|
|
|
(16) |
tìg-ìr |
“cover!” |
(17) |
fáay-ìr |
“kill!” |
(18) |
úkk-îr |
“listen!” |
(19) |
dèg-îr |
“tie!” |
(20) |
kàb |
“eat!” |
(21) |
dòllì |
“love!” |
(22) |
nàl |
“see!” |
(23) |
êd |
“take!” |
Apparently, having ceased to be a productive derivational morpheme, Nobiin -(i)r has become a morphological residue of the originally causative *-(i)r-extension. This process in which “a morpheme loses its grammatical-semantic contribution to a word but retains some remnant of its original form and thus becomes an indistinguishable part of a word’s phonological construction” can be described by Hopper’s term “demorphologization.”
Unlike the Old Nubian and Nobiin -(i)r-extension, which can be attached to intransitive and transitive bases, the cognate Mattokki -(i)r is restricted to intransitive verb bases from which it derives transitive stems. The allomorph -ur of -(i)r is conditioned by lag assimilation triggered by the root vowel.
|
Mattokki |
|
|
|
(24) |
arub |
“be folded up” itr |
arb-ir |
“fold up” tr |
(25) |
urub |
“have a hole” itr |
urb-ur |
“make a hole” tr |
(26) |
tag |
“be covered” itr |
tag-ir |
“cover, protect” tr |
Abdel-Hafiz claims that Mattokki -(i)r is a “transitivizing suffix.” However, he overlooks the fact that it also occurs on some intransitive verbs such as “move down” and “fall,” without, however, turning them into transitive verbs. These examples suggest that the functional weight of the -(i)r-extension is low.
|
|
|
(27) |
dig-ir |
“fall” |
(28) |
ʃug-ur |
“move down, descend” |
It is conceivable that the loss of morphological meaning observed with -(i)r has triggered the emergence of a reduplicated causative extension which exhibits more phonological material and more functional weight than -(i)r. The resulting (unattested) -ir-ir-suffix has presumbably undergone a phonotactic change affecting the second component of this suffix. After the metathesis of the last two segments, the resulting suffix -ir-ri (allomorph -ur-ri) has come to be realized as [iddi] or [uddi]. Massenbach accounts for this reduplicated causative suffix in her Mattokki study (29)–(30), but in Abdel-Hafiz’s grammar it is not mentioned.
aa-was-in
prog-boil-neut.3sg
“the water is boiling”
(29)
As in Mattokki, Andaandi ‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r is attached to intransitive verb bases deriving transitive stems. Both the simple ‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r and the reduplicated extension ‑iddi ~ ‑uddi are attested on these bases.
|
Andaandi |
|
|
|
(31) |
kuɲ |
“sink, get buried” itr |
kuɲ-ur |
“bury” tr |
(32) |
aag |
“squat, sit” itr |
ag-iddi |
“cause to sit, seat” tr |
(33) |
dab |
“disappear” itr |
dab-ir |
“cause to disappear” tr |
dab-os-ko-n
disappear-pfv-pt-3sg
“his/her money has disappeared”
(34)
dab-ir-men
disappear-caus-neg
“don’t lose the money”
(35)
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. 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 1sg form. Also this morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], e.g., boog-ir-ri is realized as [boogiddi] “I pour.” 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.
|
|
|
|
|
(36) |
ʃug-ur |
“move down, descend” |
ʃug-uddi |
“cause to descend” |
(37) |
bowwi |
“bathe” |
boww-iddi |
“cause to bathe” |
In Kordofan Nubian, the ‑(i)r-extension has gained and lost functions. In Dilling, for instance, the ‑(i)r-suffix has – apart from its causative function – adopted the function of an intransitivizer, thus both changing the valency of a verb from intransitive to transitive and, vice versa, from transitive to intransitive.
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(38) |
dwaj |
“spoil something” tr |
dwej-ir |
“spoil” itr |
(39) |
kuj |
“hang” itr |
kuj-ir |
“hang up” tr, oj sg |
Some transitive and intransitive verbs are always extended by the ‑(i)r-extension, thus suggesting that it has lost its valency-changing function. Noticing this loss, Kauczor refers to this extension by the German term “Stammverstärkung” – literally, “strengthening of the stem.”
The corresponding Tagle extension is realized as [ir] after [+ATR] root vowel(s), and as [ɪr] after [–ATR] vowels. It appears to have lost its valency-changing function, too. This is indicated by two facts. First, on some intransitive verbs, ‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r may or may not be present, as shown by the following verbs in 2sg imperative form (marked by the final ‑i ~ ‑ɪ).
|
Tagle |
|
(40) |
ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀ ~ ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀r-ɪ̀ |
“rise!” |
(41) |
dùʃ-ì ~ dùʃ-ìr-ì |
“come out (of the ground)!” |
(42) |
ɛ̀ʃ-ɪ̀ ~ ɛ̀ʃ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ |
“wake up!” |
Second, Tagle ‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r is attested on some transitive verbs, but not as a causative suffix. Rather, it appears to have gained a new function in interacting with singular objects. Because of this function it contrasts with the ‑er ~ ‑ɛr-extension, which is sensitive to plural objects (see §⁄6.3).
|
|
|
|
|
(43) |
ūlt-ír-ì |
“breastfeed!” oj sg |
ūlt-ér-ì |
id. oj pl |
(44) |
ùj-ír-ì |
“put down, lay down!” oj sg |
ùj-èr-í |
id. oj pl |
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.
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 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.
“make this boy hunt for gazelle!”
(46)
The causative *‑(i)r is reflected by the Midob ‑(i)r-extension. Werner provides two paired examples of ‑(i)r deriving transitive from intransitive examples.
|
Midob |
|
|
|
(47) |
tìmm-íhàm |
“we gathered” itr |
tìmm-ír-hàm |
“we gathered” tr |
(48) |
pècc-ìhêm |
“I got up” itr |
pècc-ír-hèm |
“I woke (somebody) up” tr |
In addition to deriving transitive from intransitive verbs, Midob ‑(i)r can derive ditransitive from transitive verbs. The extension ‑(i)r adds an additional argument with the role of causer and assigns the role of causee to the previous transitive subject. The patient role of the previous transitive object remains unchanged in the derived ditransitive clause. Note that the object arguments in the following two examples do not require to be overtly accusative-marked. This observation confirms Werner, who points out that syntactic objects in Midob are commonly unmarked for case.
Midob
“s/he deviated from the road”
(49)
pacc-ir-hum
deviate-caus-prf.3sg
“s/he made him deviate from the road”
(50)
In terms of its valency-increasing function, Midob ‑(i)r is comparable to the extension ‑ée-k ~ -èe-k (§⁄2.2).
2.2. The Causative *‑(i)gir-Extension¶
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.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
*‑(i)gir |
-ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ |
-kir, -in-kir |
-igir, -gid-di |
‑(i)gir, -(i)n-gir |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
-iir < -eg-ir oj.sg, -eer < -ig-er oj.pl |
-ɪg-ɪr oj.sg, -ɪg-ɛr oj.pl |
-ɛɛr < -ɛg-ɪr |
-ée-k, -èe-k |
Table 5. The causative extension *-(i)gir
Old Nubian -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ – alternatively spelled as -ⲅⲉⲣ -ⲅⲣ̄, -ⲓⲅⲣ̄, -ⲕⲁⲣ, and -ⲕⲣ̄ – can be attached to nominals and verbs. According to Van Gerven Oei, the Old Nubian causative -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ developed from an auxiliary verb, which later turned into a derivational suffix.
The following examples from Browne’s dictionary show that it derives transitive verb stems from an intransitive base, and ditransitive stems from a transitive base.
|
Old Nubian |
|
|
|
(51) |
ⲟⲕ, ⲱⲕ, ⲟⲅ |
“stand, be (over)” itr |
ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲁⲣ, ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ |
“place over, attend” tr |
(52) |
ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ |
“shine” itr |
ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ-ⲓⲅⲣ̄ |
“reveal, illumine” tr |
(53) |
ⲓϭ, ⲉϭ |
“send, impel” tr |
ⲓϭ-ⲅⲣ̄ |
“cause to send” ditr |
Browne points out that -(ⲁ)ⲣ (§⁄2.1) and -ⲅ-(ⲁ)ⲣ may occasionally interchange. This finding supports my claim that they have the same function.
|
|
|
(54) |
ⲧⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁⲣ ~ ⲧⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲓⲅⲁⲣ |
“assemble” |
In Nobiin, particularly in the Fadicca dialect, kir “make” is still used as an independent verb, as Reinisch points out. In addition, kir has undergone a grammaticalization process which has resulted in a causative construction comprising an uninflected lexical verb marked by the converb suffix ‑a followed by kir serving as an auxiliary (for converb constructions see §⁄3.2). This biverbal causative construction is very similar to the applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages. The following examples are drawn from Reinisch.
|
Nobiin |
|
|
|
(55) |
kab |
“eat” |
kab-a kir |
“feed” |
(56) |
junti |
“pregnant” |
junt-a kir |
“impregnate” |
In the Nobiin variety documented by Werner, however, kìr is no longer part of a biverbal converb construction but rather a derivational suffix of the lexical verb root. The suffix ‑kèer results from ‑kir-ir, i.e., the fusion of the causative suffix ‑kir with the 1sg present tense suffix ‑ir.
kàb-kèer
eat-caus.ind.prs.1sg
“I feed him,” lit. “I make him eat”
(57)
In addition to ‑kìr, Nobiin exhibits the complex causative extension ‑in-kir. The etymological origin of the component ‑in is debatable. Is it the linker ‑(i)n-, as Werner first assumed, or a cognate of the Old Nubian copula verb ⲉⲓⲛ (in), as he has recently proposed? Werner renders ‑in-kir as “let be” or “let happen” which fits well the semantic association of ‑in-kir with permission. By contrast, ‑kìr connotes with causation. This semantic distinction is confirmed by the Nobiin mother tongue speaker Isaameddiin Hasan.
The inflectional suffix ‑kiss is due to anticipatory assimilation of the final consonant of ‑kir to the preterite suffix ‑s.
nàl-ìnkìss
see-caus.ind.pt.1sg
“I caused him to see”
(58)
The Mattokki causative extensions ‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi (< ‑gir-ri < ‑gir-ir), and ‑kiddi (< ‑kir-ri < ‑kir-ir) derive transitive stems from intransitive bases and ditransitive stems from transitive bases.
|
Mattokki |
|
|
|
(59) |
boor |
“be destroyed” |
boor-kiddi |
“destroy” |
(60) |
soll |
“hang” |
soll-igir |
“hang up” |
(61) |
kuur |
“learn” |
kuur-kiddi |
“teach” |
Here is a Mattokki example of kuur “learn” in a causative construction with two arguments, a 1sg causee and an assumed unexpressed pronominal patient.
aa-kuur-kiddi-mun-um
prog-learn-caus-neg-ind.pt.3sg
“he did not teach [it] to me,” lit. “he did not make me learn [it]”
(62)
The Andaandi causative suffix ‑(i)gir is, as Armbruster argues, morphologically composed of two morphemes, accusative marker ‑g (i.e., the “objective suffix” in Armbruster’s terms) and causative suffix ‑ir discussed in §⁄2.1.
However, the fact that the velar stop [g] appears even in the non-Nubian Ama causative suffixes ‑ɪg and ‑ɛg (see §⁄5.2) indicates that this stop should be identified with the causative, rather than with the accusative morpheme.
The ‑(i)gir-extension occurs on intransitive and transitive verb stems. It is also used on borrowings from Arabic, such as jammɛ in (65). This indicates that ‑(i)gir is highly productive.
|
Andaandi |
|
|
|
(63) |
ɛɛʃ=ɛ |
“belch” |
ɛɛʃ=ɛ-gir |
“cause or allow to belch, play with food and drink” |
(64) |
ulli |
“kindle” |
ull-igir |
“cause or allow to kindle” |
(65) |
jamm=ɛ |
“come together, assemble” |
jamm=ɛ-gir |
“cause or allow to come together, assemble” |
Besides attaching to verbal bases, Andaandi ‑(i)gir can attach to nominal bases, too. The resulting forms are transitive verb stems.
|
|
|
|
|
(66) |
fɛkka |
“change, small coin” (Arabic loan) |
fekka-gir |
“convert into change” |
(67) |
dolli |
“deep” |
doll-igir |
“cause or allow to be or become deep, deepen” |
(68) |
owwi |
“two” |
oww-igir |
“cause or allow to be or become two, double” |
In addition to the ‑(i)gir-extension, Andaandi exhibits the complex causative extension ‑(i)n-gir, realized after a vowel as [ŋgir], after a consonant as [iŋgir]. It strongly resembles the Nobiin causative ‑in-kir. Armbruster proposes to parse ‑ŋ-gir into three morphemes ‑n-g-ir, comprising the 3rd person suffix ‑n of the subjunctive present tense, the accusative marker ‑g, and the causative suffix ‑ir. However, this morphological analysis is not convincing, particularly when the subject of the verb is a 2nd person addressee, as seen in the prohibitive and imperative examples below. Two alternative interpretations should be considered. Is ‑(i)n- to be identified with the linker tying the causative extension ‑(i)gir to the verb root? Or, as Werner has suggested for the Nobiin causative extension ‑in-kir, should we interpret ‑in as a cognate of the Old Nubian copula ⲉⲓⲛ (in)? In the latter case the causative ‑in-gir may be rendered by “let be, let happen.” This interpretation is supported by the notion of (negated) permission which is particularly apparent in (69).
dab-iŋgir-men
get.lost-caus-neg
“don’t let it get lost!”
(69)
“cause him to light the fire!”
(70)
The Kordofan Nubian language Dilling has two causative extensions, ‑iir and ‑eer. According to Kauczor, the suffix ‑iir is a contracted realization of ‑ig-ir, cf. transitive ʃwak-iir “raise” and intransitive ʃwak-ir “rise.” The suffix ‑eer is either a contracted realization of ‑eg-ir or ‑ig-er. The first is attested on the derived transitive verb kok-eer “split,” while the latter occurs on the derived transitive verb with a plural object, duk-eer “bend.” Some transitive verbs extended by ‑eer do not have an intransitive stem. This is true for ʃah-eer “mend.”
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(71) |
ʃwak-ir |
“rise” itr |
ʃwak-iir |
“raise” |
(72) |
duk-ir |
“bow” itr |
duk-iir |
“bend” oj sg |
|
|
|
duk-eer |
“bend” oj pl |
(73) |
kok-er |
“split” itr |
kok-eer |
“split” tr |
(74) |
|
|
ʃah-eer |
“mend” tr |
Similar to Dilling, Tagle uses the causative extensions ‑ɪg-ɪr and ‑ɪg-ɛr, when referring to a singular and a plural object, respectively.
|
Tagle |
|
(75) |
ɛ̀ʃ-ɪ̀ ~ ɛ̀ʃ-ɪ̀r-ɪ̀ |
“wake up” itr, imp 2sg |
(76) |
ɛ́ʃ-ɪ́g-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ |
“wake up” tr, oj sg, imp 2sg |
(77) |
ɛ́ʃ-ɪ́g-ɛ́r-ɪ̀ |
“wake up” tr, oj pl, imp 2sg |
The causative function of Tagle ‑ɪ́g-ɪ́r and ‑ɪ́g-ɛ́r can be demonstrated by the following examples. Note that the abbreviations sg and pl are used for glossing the number of nominal elements (e.g., nouns, agreement markers on verbs), when glossing verbal number, however, the singular and plural stems are glossed by sng and plr.
ʃɔ̀k-ɪ̀r-ɪ̀
rise-sng-imp.2sg
“rise!”
(78)
ʃɔ́k-ɪ́g-ɪ́r-ɪ̀
raise-caus-sng-imp.2sg
“raise your head!”
(79)
ùníì=n
2pl.gen.people=gen
ʃɔ́k-ɪ́g-ɛ́r-ɪ̀
raise-caus-plr-imp.2sg
“raise your people’s heads!”
(80)
The Karko extension ‑ɛɛr is only found on transitive verbs. It originates from ‑ɛg-ɪr, the intervocalic velar [g] is assumed to be deleted. The extension ‑ɛɛr often expresses single events, the morphologically unmarked stem, by contrast, conveys multiple events.
Karko
“split this [piece of] wood!”
(81)
“split the [pieces of] wood!”
(82)
Midob, too, has – besides the ‑(i)r-extension discussed in §⁄2.1 – another valency-increasing extension. With some verb bases it is realized as high tone ‑éek, with others as low tone ‑èek. Werner’s examples illustrate that ‑éek ~ ‑èek derives causative from transitive verb bases. The question whether it also derives transitive from intransitive bases has yet to be answered.
|
Midob |
|
|
|
(83) |
ètt-ìhèm |
“I crossed” |
ètt-èek-ìhèm |
“I caused to cross” |
(84) |
tèey-áhèm |
“I carried” |
tèey-éek-ìhêm |
“I caused to carry” |
(85) |
ètt-áhèm |
“I bought” oj pl |
ètt-éek-ìhêm |
“I sold” oj pl |
Midob ètt represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the singular stem èed. As Midob nouns are not required to be marked for number, the plurality of the object is solely expressed by the plural stem ètt. Literally, the following example can be rendered as “I made him/her buy my goats,” that is, with an unexpressed pronominal causee.
ett-eek-ih-èm
buy.plr-caus-prf-1sg
“I sold my goats”
(86)
Whereas the causative extensions in the Nile Nubian and Kordofan Nubian languages obviously originate from the Proto-Nubian *‑(i)gir-extension, it is more difficult to show this for the Midob ‑éek ~ ‑èek. The presence of the voiceless velar [k] is a first indication of the etymological relationship to *‑(i)gir, since initial Proto-Nubian *g is regularly shifted to Midob k, as attested by *geel-e > kéelé “red”; *gorji > kórcí “six”; and *goj > kòcc “slaughter.” Furthermore, the long vowel of ‑éek ~ ‑èek is suspected to be a realization of *‑(i)r, because syllable-final *r is often deleted in Midob. Compare *juur > sóo “go, walk”; *weer > pèe “someone (indefinite pronoun)”; and *kir > ìi “come.” The lengthening of the ii-vowel in the last item, which also attests the regular loss of initial *k in Midob, is regarded to be a compensation for the lost *r. Compensatory lengthening does not occur in sóo and pèe because they have an originally long vowel.
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.
3. The Applicative¶
The applicative – more precisely, the benefactive applicative – is a valency-increasing morphological device which adds an object argument to the basic construction. This object argument is commonly assigned the role of beneficiary (or, depending on the semantics of the lexical verb, a semantically related role such as a recipient or addressee).
Applicative constructions in the Nubian languages are based on a grammaticalized verb “give.” In the Nile Nubian languages, the grammaticalization path has led to a periphrastic applicative construction, comprising a nonfinite lexical verb and a finite donative verb. In the western branch, by contrast, the grammaticalization process has gone further, because “give” has adopted the status of a derivational applicative extension. Both the Nile Nubian and the western Nubian applicative constructions are highly productive.
Before exploring these applicative constructions in more detail, we show in §⁄3.1 that most Nubian languages have two donative verbs serving as independent lexical verbs. In §⁄3.2 we introduce the concept of “converb,” as applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages can be identified as converb constructions, see §⁄3.3 and §⁄3.5.
3.1. Two Verbs for “give”¶
It is assumed that originally each of the Nubian languages considered in this paper had two donative verbs. Rilly reconstructed them as *tir and *deen. Differing in their deictic component, reflexes of *tir refer to a 2nd or 3rd person recipient, while reflexes of *deen are associated with a 1st person recipient. That is, *tir can be rendered as “give to other than the speaker(s)” and *deen as “give to the speaker(s).”
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). In imperative applicative forms, by contrast, at least in Karko and Dilling, the two distinct donative verbs are used (see §⁄3.5).
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.
Proto-Nubian word-initial *t (as, for instance, in *toor “enter”; *tar “he, she”; *tossi-gu “three”) is regularly reflected by a dental t̪ in the Kordofan Nubian languages. However, *tir “give” is unexpectedly reflected by Karko tìì, i.e., with an initial alveolar, rather than with the expected dental stop t̪. On the other hand, the shift of initial *d (as in *deen) to the Kordofan Nubian alveolar t is quite regular. It is also attested in reflexes of *duŋ(-ur) “blind”; *diji “five”; and *dii “die.” The fact that Karko tìì and tèn both exhibit an initial alveolar stop indicates the beginning of a morphological blending of the originally distinct donative verbs. This process of simplification is already completed in Tagle tí, suggesting the loss of the lexical and semantic contrast originally associated with the two verbs. As Tagle tí can neither be shown to be a reflex of *tir nor of *deen, it is considered to be the unpredictable outcome of that blending and simplification process.
In Table 6, the lexical items which are not regarded as reflexes of Proto-Nubian *tir are put in parentheses.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
*tir |
ⲧⲣ, ⲧⲣ̄ |
tìr |
tir |
tir |
(tir)? |
(tí) |
(tìì) |
tìr |
*deen |
ⲇⲉⲛ, ⲇⲓⲛ |
dèen |
deen |
deen |
tin |
(tí) |
tèn |
téen |
Table 6. The two verbs for “give”
The Old Nubian reflexes of *tir and *deen are ⲧⲣ̄ (tir) and ⲇⲉⲛ (den), also spelled as ⲇⲓⲛ (din). As Proto-Nubian *deen is reflected by deen in Nobiin, Mattokki, and Andaandi, one would expect the ⲉ in Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ to represent a long vowel as well. However, as Old Nubian does not have a standardized orthography, long vowels are sometimes spelled by doubling the corresponding vowel character but often they are just written with a single vowel in the Old Nubian texts.
Old Nubian
ⲧⲁⲕⲕⲁ ⳟⲟⲕ ⲧⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲥⲱ
tin-na-sō
give>2/3-imp.2/3pl.pred-comm
“give him glory!”
(87)
ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲁ ⳟⲟⲕⲟⲩ ⲇⲓⲛⲉⲥⲱ
din-e-sō
give>1-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm
“give me glory!”
(88)
In the following Matokki example tir is realized as [tij], because of the anticipatory assimilation of the root-final r to the following palatal j. The unexpressed 3pl pronominal recipient “(to) them” requires the pluractional -(i)j-extension combined with the plural object marker ‑ir or ‑(i)r-ir.
Mattokki
tij-j-ir-s-im
give>2/3-plact-ploj-pt2-1sg
“I gave them money”
(91)
toodek=ki
a.little.bit=acc
“give me a little bit of bread!”
(92)
The following Andaandi clause exhibits the plural object extension ‑ir being triggered by the plural referent of the direct object (theme). In the second example the plural referent of the indirect object (recipient) requires the pluractional -(i)j realized as [c] combined with the plural object extensions ‑(i)r-ir. The two examples also show that the position of the pronominal recipient may vary. In the first example the recipient precedes the theme, in the second example this sequence is reversed.
Andaandi
“give these (various things) to him/her!”
(93)
deen-c-irir
give>1-plact-ploj
“give this to us!”
(94)
Dilling and Karko distinguish two donative verbs. As pointed out in the beginning of this section, Kauczor’s Dilling data do not account for the phonemic contrast between t̪ and t, therefore tir and tin are spelled with the same initial character. We assume, that – similar to Tagle and Karko – the initial segment in both verbs is an alveolar t. The final ‑en on the uninflected donative verbs can be identified as a purposive converb marker (see §⁄3.2).
Dilling
a=tir-en
2sg.acc=give>2/3-pcnv
“shall I give it also to you so that you eat it?”
(95)
o=tin-en
1sg.acc=give>1-pcnv
“will you give it also to me so that I eat it?”
(96)
Tagle has lost the distinction between the two donative verbs, leaving a single donative verb, tí. In the following examples, tí refers to a 3rd person and a 1sg recipient. When exchanging the 1sg accusative clitic ò for 2sg à, the verb tí can be shown to refer to a 2nd person recipient, as well.
Tagle
“he gave him/them milk”
(97)
ò=tí-m-ín
1sg.acc=give-pst-3
“he gave me milk”
(98)
Like Dilling but unlike Tagle, Karko exhibits two donative verbs, tìì (with an irregular alveolar t rather than the expected dental t̪) and tèn, respectively.
Karko
“give him this cow!”
(99)
In Midob, the original distinction between the two donative verbs is retained as well, *tir being reflected by the low tone verb stem tìr “give to you/him/them” and *deen by the high tone verb stem téen “give to me/us.” Apparently, these stems undergo some alternations in their imperative forms, tìr being realized as tìd and téen as téèm. When they refer to a plural recipient, they require the plural stem extension -èr ~ -àr (§⁄6.3).
|
Midob |
|
|
|
(101) |
tìd |
“give him!” |
téèm |
“give me!” |
(102) |
tìr-èr |
“give them!” 2sg |
téén-àr |
“give us!” |
Parallel to their continuous use as independent verbs, the two Nubian donative verbs have undergone grammaticalization associated with applicative constructions. In the course of this process they have lost their status as lexical verbs. Due to reanalysis they have gained the status of valency-increasing elements, either as derivational suffixes or as a kind of auxiliary in a biverbal converb construction.
3.2. Converb Constructions¶
Before embarking on a more detailed account of these applicative constructions in §⁄3.3, §⁄3.4, and §⁄3.5, the present rather extensive section aims at shedding more light on the properties of the nonfinite dependent verbs. Due to their restricted occurrence and specific functions, these verbs are identified as converbs. Whereas converbs in Andaandi and Mattokki are morphologically unmarked, Old Nubian and Nobiin exhibit an ‑a-suffix as converb marker. We claim that this suffix differs from the homophone “predicate marker” ‑a which is attested as a clitic in Old Nubian and Nobiin. According to Van Gerven Oei, Old Nubian ‑a can cliticize to various hosts, including i) nominal and verbal predicates in main clauses; ii) final clauses; iii) the element preceding a universal quantifier; and iv) names and kinship terms where ‑a is used as a vocative marker. A remnant of the Old Nubian predicate marker is also attested in Nobiin, where it serves as a copula.
Previous scholars of Nile Nubian languages used various other terms for converbs, including “participle,” “adjunctive,” “verbum conjunctum,” “a-Form,” or “predicate marker.” Only in Hintze’s and Smagina’s studies does the term converb occur, apparently because these authors were acquainted with the concept of converb in Slavic, Turkish, and Mongolian studies.
Converbs are known from various verb-final languages of Eurasia and South America. However, according to Amha & Dimmendaal, converbs are also common in the Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan languages of northeastern Africa. In these languages, converbs share at least two typological features, one semantic and one morphological. Semantically, converbs can be used for “adverbial modification of manner” and also for combining “series of events usually anterior to or simultaneous with the event expressed by the main verb.” Amha & Dimmendaal also assert that converbs “are morphologically distinct from main verbs as well as dependent verb forms occurring in conditional, purposive, or reason clauses.” This latter claim, however, should be restricted to conditional and reason clauses because some languages – for instance Beria (Saharan), Dilling and Uncu (Kordofan Nubian) – have dedicated purposive converbs (cf. Dilling examples (95) and (96)). These converbs are morphologically distinct from converbs used for conjoining a series of events or for adverbial modification.
The characteristic semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages are first illustrated by three Nobiin examples. The converbs in (103) express a series of events, each of the transitive converbs being preceded by its acc-marked object argument. The converb joog-j-a additionally has an ins-marked adjunct jaaw=log. Thus, the converb(s) and the finite main verb together with their arguments and adjuncts constitute a multiclausal construction.
Nobiin
sukk-oos-on
descend-pfv-pt.3sg
“she ground the cereals with the handmill, prepared the dough, stirred her side dish, drew her water, and went down to the work with the man”
(103)
The converb in (104) indicates an event prior to the event designated by the main verb.
kaj-j-a
come.plr-plact-cnv
“having arrived they went to him/her”
(104)
In (105) the converb expresses an event which is simultaneous with the event designated by the main verb. In this latter case the converb can be interpreted as an adverbial modifier of the main verb.
In the Nile Nubian languages, converbs share the same subject with the main verb. Whereas main verbs are fully inflected, the range of inflectional morphemes on converbs is strongly restricted: they do not take tense, negation and cross-referencing subject markers. Derivational extensions and aspect markers, by contrast, do occur on converbs, as attested by the pluractional ‑(i)j on kaj-j-a in (104), and the perfective markers ‑ed and ‑os ~ ‑oos illustrated in (106).
Converb constructions and serial verb constructions resemble each other because in each of them the verbs combine as a single complex predicate. However, whereas serial verbs can serve as independent verbs in simple clauses (in the same form), this is not possible for converbs. Moreover, serial verbs “allow no markers of syntactic dependency on their components.” Converbs, in contrast, usually receive a dedicated converb marker, as attested by Old Nubian ‑ⲁ and the cognate Nobiin ‑a-suffix. Andaandi and Mattokki, however, do not exhibit a converb marker. Its absence is considered to result from loss and hence to be a secondary historical development. Except for the lack of a converb marker, Andaandi and Mattokki converbs behave like Old Nubian and Nobiin converbs.
Andaandi
“they drink tea, pray, get up, and leave”
(106)
When both the converb(s) and the main verb contribute equally to the semantic expression of events, as illustrated in (106), this type of complex predicate is conceived of as a symmetrical converb construction. It differs from an asymmetrical type which comprises a converb from an open class and a main verb from a closed class. These asymmetrical constructions result from specific syntactic constellations in which the converb and the main verb are immediately adjacent to each other. Such contiguous converb plus main verb sequences are subject to various grammaticalization processes in which the main verbs can turn into markers of aspect/modality, direction, or even valency change. The latter, i.e., the valency-changing use of asymmetrical converb constructions, is attested by the applicative constructions in the Nile Nubian languages – and even by some causative constructions, as seen in (55) and (56).
The stative aspect marker in Nobiin, for instance, is also associated with an asymmetrical converb construction (107). It results from the collocation of a lexical verb in converb form (V1) and a finite posture verb fìyyîr ~ fìir “lie” as V2. In this bipartite construction, the posture verb renders a stative reading to V1, depicting the eating as a transient state of affairs.
Similarly, in Mattokki and Andaandi, a motion verb realized by an unmarked converb (V1), plus a finite posture verb buu “lie, rest” (V2), is used to express a transient state of motion. Due to its grammaticalization as a stative marker, V2 has lost its status as a separable main verb. The question clitic te, for instance, cannot be inserted between V1 and V2.
Andaandi
“s/he is on his way hither”
(108)
While the preceding Nobiin and Andaandi examples illustrate the grammaticalization of an asymmetric converb construction in which the main verb has turned into an aspect marker, the following examples show another type of asymmetric converb construction. It is associated with the collocation of transfer and directed motion verbs which jointly express single directed events.
Nobiin
ay ed-a kiir > ay ed-kiir [ekkiir] “I bring it,” lit. “I take it and come”
(109)
ay ed-a juur > ay ed-juur [ejjuur] “I take it along,” lit. “I take it and go”
(110)
Andaandi, too, exhibits similar converb constructions expressing directed transfer events. The verbs involved in such a construction are often synonymous or nearly synonymous.
|
Andaandi |
|
(111) |
sukk undur |
“insert it!, squeeze it in!,” lit. “insert it and enter it!” |
(112) |
kall undur |
“push it in!,” lit. “push it and enter it!” |
(113) |
kall oos |
“push it out!,” lit. “push it and cause it to issue!” |
(114) |
toll oos |
“pull it out!,” lit. “pull it and cause it to issue!” |
(115) |
tolle dukki |
“pull it out!,” lit. “pull it and pull it out!” |
(116) |
nog ju ind etta |
“go and bring it,” lit. “go and move along and take it up and bring it!” |
In Mattokki, too, such transfer events are often expressed by more than one verb. When the derived transitive verb ʃuguddi “bring down,” for instance, is preceded by the converb uski “bear, give birth,” the resulting construction uski ʃuguddi expresses the single transfer event “give birth.” Abdel-Hafiz considers such biverbal converb constructions as compounds and consequently writes them as one word.
Mattokki
ekk-undur-s-u
urinate-insert-pt2-3sg
“the dog urinated on the wall”
(117)
At least in Andaandi, however, the clitic interrogative marker te can be inserted between the two verbs. This indicates that they are separate verbs rather than compounds.
Andaandi
“did he urinate on it?”
(118)
When a directed motion or transfer event is expressed by means of two verbs, of which V1 conveys the manner of movement and V2 the path or trajectory in relation to the deictic center, this construction represents a pattern typical of verb-framed languages where “manner must be expressed in some kind of subordinate element, such as a gerund or other adverbial expression,” as Slobin points out. In the Nile Nubian languages, the adverbial expression is represented by a converb.
Asymmetrical converb constructions can also become fixed collocations expressing a unique and often unpredictable meaning. This is illustrated by the following examples, which have become inseparable biverbal compounds.
|
|
|
(119) |
dukk-undur |
“spread rumors!,” lit. “pull out and enter!” |
(120) |
tull-undur |
“spread lies!,” lit. “blow (smoke) and enter!” |
Such collocations and the grammaticalization of adjacent verbs are also manifested in asymmetric serial verb constructions, as Aikhenvald points out. For this reason, these features cannot be regarded as defining properties of converbs.
The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions attested in the modern Nile Nubian languages are also apparent in Old Nubian whose converbs are marked by ‑ⲁ. The converb(s) and the main verb, along with their respective object complements and adjuncts, form multiclausal constructions which can express a series of events, as illustrated by ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧ-ⲁ … ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ-ⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (121) and by ⳝⲟⲣ-ⲁ ⲕⲓ-ⲁ̄ … ⲕⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ in (122).
Old Nubian
ⲙⲁⲛ⳿ ⲉⲧ̄ⲧⲗ̄ⲗⲟⲛ ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲕ⳿ ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧⲁ ⲁ̄ⲙⲁⲛⲇⲟ⳿ ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ
kis-n-a
come.pt2-2/3sg-pred
“that woman took up the egg and went down to the water” (M 3.14–4.1)
(121)
ⳟⲥⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲏⲛⲁⲉⲓⲟⲛ ⲙⲁⲛ ⲉⲧ̄ⲧⲛ̄ ⳟⲟⲅⲗⲟ ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ ϣⲁⲁⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲙ̄ⲙⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ·
ook-ir-s-n-a
call-caus-pt2-2/3-pred
“And Saint Mena went to the house of that woman, knocked on the door and had her called.” (M 12.13–16)
(122)
A converb can also represent an event anterior to the event designated by the main verb, as illustrated by ⲟⲩⲕⲣⲓ ⲇⲓⲉ̇ⲅⲟⲩⲗ ⳟⲟⲕ-ⲁ ⳝⲟⲣⲟⲩⲁⲛⲛⲟⲛ … ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (123).
ⲟⲩⲕⲣⲓ ⲇⲓⲉ̇ⲅⲟⲩⲗ ⳟⲟⲕⲁ ⳝⲟⲣⲟⲩⲁⲛⲛⲟⲛ ⲫⲓⲗⲟⲝⲉⲛⲓⲧⲏⲛ ⲅⲁⲁⲇⲇⲱ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ
jor-ou-an=non
go-pt1-3pl=foc
philoxenitē=n
Philoxenite=gen
ki-s-n-a
come-pt2-2/3sg-pred
“And after many days had gone by, he came to the shore of Philoxenite” (M 7.15–8.2)
(123)
When the converb expresses an event simultaneous with the event expressed by the main verb, it is used like an adverb of manner modifying the main verb, as shown by ⲇⲟⲕ‑ⲁ ⲕⲛ̄ in (124).
ⲙⲟⲩⲣⲧⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲩⲗⲟⲩⲕⲁ⳿ ⲇⲟⲕⲁ ⲕⲛ̄
“[… as] he came riding a white horse” (M 11.1)
(124)
Similar to the modern Nile Nubian languages, Old Nubian converbs do not take inflectional morphemes such as tense, negation, and subject markers. In fact, the variety of aspect and derivational extensions is strongly restricted. They comprise the perfective markers, ‑ⲉⲓⲧ ~ ‑ⲉⲧ as in (121) en-et-a and ‑ⲟⲥ in (125) aul‑os-ij-a, as well as the causative, as attested on (144) pill-igr-a, and the pluractional ‑j on (125) aul‑os-ij-a. These suffixes immediately precede the converb marker ‑ⲁ. However, in comparison to the modern Nile Nubian languages where ‑os ~ ‑oos is frequently found with converbs – as seen in (103) and (106) – the Old Nubian perfective marker ‑ⲟⲥ appears to be rather rare. Moreover, it is often attested being followed by the pluractional extension ‑j. In the modern Nile Nubian languages, by contrast, the pluractional ‑(i)j precedes ‑os ~ ‑oos, as in (161) gull‑ij‑os-s-u. These findings show that the position of ‑ⲟⲥ is not yet firmly established in the Old Nubian grammatical system. They support Van Gerven Oei’s hypothesis that ‑ⲟⲥ and ‑ⲉⲓⲧ ~ ‑ⲉⲧ are newly developed perfective markers in Old Nubian.
ⲥ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲕⲕⲟⲛⲁ ⲧⲱⲉⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲁ ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲓⳝ[ⲁ̄]· ⳟⲁⲗⲓ̈ⳝⲟⲩⲁⲇⲇⲛ[ⲁ]ⲉⲛⲕⲱ
aul-os-ij-a
save-pfv-plact-cnv
ŋal-ijou-ad-d-n-a-enkō
save-plact-inten-prs-2/3sg-pred-but
“but (the) power of the glorious cross will save and rescue them” (St 15.1–9)
(125)
Asymmetric converb constructions in Old Nubian often involve two contiguous motion or transfer verbs. These collocations serve to express single directed events, as shown by (121) ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ “descend” plus “come,” i.e., “go down to” or (122) ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ “go” plus “come,” i.e., “go to.” Collocations of two nearly synonymous verbs can even turn into compound verb stems in which the converb marker is deleted.
ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “present an offering” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “worship” (M 6.5)
(126)
ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲣ “deposit” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲣ “lay” (M 6.15)
(127)
Now, after having described the morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of Nile Nubian converb constructions and after identifying the Old Nubian verbal suffix ‑ⲁ and its cognate, Nobiin ‑a, as dedicated converb markers, we will finally turn towards the applicative in the Nile Nubian and western Nubian languages.
3.3. The Applicative Based on *tir¶
While Nile Nubian languages and Midob employ reflexes of *tir in their applicative constructions, the Kordofan Nubian languages employ a new donative verb. As this verb is not a regular reflex of *tir, it is not accounted for in this section but rather in §⁄3.4.
Nile Nubian applicatives are encoded by bipartite converb constructions, including a converb, which contributes to the lexical expression of the event, and an inflected donative verb as a marker of increased valence. In the western Nubian languages, however, the donative verb is a derivational extension which attaches to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker -(i)n, see Midob in Table 7 and examples of Kordofan Nubian in §⁄3.4. Whereas the Midob applicative extension -(i)n-tir can license a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary, the Nile Nubian applicative based on *tir is restricted to 2nd and 3rd person beneficiaries, thus retaining the original system.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
*tir |
ⲧⲣ, ⲧⲣ̄ |
tìr |
tir |
tir |
- |
- |
- |
-(i)n-tir |
Table 7. Applicative marker *tir
In the bipartite Old Nubian applicative construction, the stem of the lexical verb V1 is marked for its status as dependent verb by the converb suffix ‑ⲁ. It is followed by V2, the finite donative verb serving as valency-increasing grammatical device.
Old Nubian
ⲕⲟⲩⲙⲡⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲧⲁⲛ⳿ ⲉⲓⲗⲁ⳿ ⲟⲩⲧⲣ̄ⲁ ⲧⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ
tir-s-n-a
appl>2/3-pt2-3sg-pred
“she placed the egg in his hand” (M 7.4–6)
(128)
Such periphrastic applicative constructions are considered to be asymmetric formations because only the converb (V1) contributes to the lexical expression of the event. The finite donative verb (V2), by contrast, provides grammatical meaning as “valence operator” licensing an object argument with a beneficiary role or a semantically related role.
The following three examples illustrate an applicative construction with the utterance verb “say, tell.” Because of the semantics of this verb, the applied object argument is assigned the role of addressee. When this object has a pronominal 3rd person referent as in (129), the corresponding person pronoun is not required to be overtly expressed.
Nobiin
iig-a-tir-on
say-cnv-appl>2/3-pt.3sg
“he told you/him/her”
(129)
talaamiidii=g
disciples=acc
iig-a-tij-j-on (< iig-a-tir-j-on)
say-cnv-appl>2/3-plact-pt.3sg
“he told his disciples”
(130)
íig-à-tèer
say-cnv-appl>2/3.prs.1sg
“I tell you/him/her”
(131)
In Mattokki and Andaandi, too, the verb tir (with the allomorph sir when following s) has become a valency-increasing device forming applicative constructions. In (132) the pronominal object tek=ki has a beneficiary role, while in (133) ek=k has the role of addressee assigned by the utterance verb wee “say.”
Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin converbs, which are marked by ‑a, Mattokki and Andaandi do not have such a dedicated converb marker. Due to the lack of tone-marked data, we do not know, however, whether converbs undergo any tonal modifications.
Mattokki
kus-sir-sim
open-appl>2/3-pt.1sg
“I opened [it] for him”
(132)
aa-wee-tir-rin
prog-say-appl>2/3-neut.1sg
“I am telling you”
(133)
Massenbach, Armbruster, Werner, and Abdel-Hafiz represent the biverbal applicative constructions as single words. At least in Andaandi, however, the question clitic te can be inserted between the converb and the finite donative verb. This indicates that the converb and the donative verb are separable free forms. The question of whether the two verbs in the corresponding Nobiin and Mattokki applicative constructions can be separated as well has yet to be investigated.
Andaandi
“did he open [it] for him/her?”
(134)
In Midob, the applicative construction is associated with a reflex of *tir realized as tir. As in Kordofan Nubian (see §⁄3.4) it is a bound morpheme tied to the lexical verb stem by the linker ‑(i)n. After a consonant-final lexical verb such as əək, the linker is realized by the allomorph ‑Vn. Apparently, due to lag assimilation, V adopts the quality of the stem vowel ə.
Although *tir originally only referred to 3rd or 2nd person recipients/beneficiaries, as still attested in the applicative constructions of the Nile Nubian languages, this restriction does no longer hold for Midob tir. It can serve in applicative constructions, no matter whether the applied object has a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person referent. Examples (135) and (136) show the directed transfer verb əək “send” assigning the role of recipient to a 2sg and a 1sg object pronoun.
Midob
əək-ən-tir-hem
send-lk-appl-prf.1sg
“I have sent that letter to you”
(135)
əək-ən-tir-hum
send-lk-appl-prf.3sg
“s/he has sent that letter to me”
(136)
3.4. The Applicative in the Kordofan Nubian Languages¶
Unlike the Nile Nubian applicatives where a donative verb operates in an asymmetric converb construction, applicatives in the languages of the western branch employ a donative verb as an applicative suffix attached to the lexical verb stem by means of the linker ‑(i)n. In the introduction to §⁄3 we have already pointed out that – except for their imperative forms – Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions exhibit a single donative verb, which is neither a regular reflex of *tir nor of *deen. Moreover, like ‑(i)n-tir in Midob, the applicative extension in the Kordofan Nubian languages can refer to a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary. This means that languages of the western branch have lost the original distinction between the two donative verbs.
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
-n-di < -n-ti |
-n-dì < -n-tì |
-n-dìì < -n-tìì |
Table 8. The applicative extension in the Kordofan Nubian languages
Dilling ti is referred to by Kauczor as “verbum dativum.” When attaching to the lexical verb stem by the linker ‑(i)n, the resulting morpheme sequence is realized as ‑(i)n-di. It is assumed to originate in the innovative t-initial donative verb which is employed in Tagle and Karko. The utterance verb in (137) assigns the role of addressee to the unexpressed 3rd person object pronoun. In (138) the verb “hit” assigns to the 1st person object clitic the role of a “maleficiary,” rather than beneficiary.
Dilling
fe-n-di-re
say-lk-appl-prs.1sg
“I tell him”
(137)
o=bod-n-di-m [oboːnum]
1sg.acc=hit-lk-appl-pst.3
“he hit me (on my) head”
(138)
In Tagle, too, the linker ‑(i)n connects the applicative extension -tì with the lexical verb stem. The ‑tì-extension is realized as [dì] after adopting the [+voice] feature of the nasal in ‑(i)n. Although Tagle suffixes mostly take the same ATR value as the root vowel, the applicative suffix retains the [+ATR] value of the donative verb tì. This suggests that the applicative extension ‑n-dì has not yet acquired the phonological properties of “regular” bound morphemes, whose vowels commonly harmonize with the root vowel. As applicative extension, Tagle tì has a low tone. When used as independent verb, it has a high tone, as seen in (97) and (98). Examples (139) and (140) show the applicative extension referring to a 3rd person and a 1st person beneficiary.
Tagle
ʃʊ́-n-dì-m
weed-lk-appl-pst.3
“the girl weeded the field for the woman”
(139)
ɔ̀=ʃʊ́-n-dì-m
1sg.acc=weed-lk-appl-pst.3
“the girl weeded the field for me”
(140)
Applicative extentions may attach to an intransitive or transitive verb stem, as illustrated by the Karko verbs ɕīj “descend (itr)” and kɛɛ “make sth. good (tr),” respectively, shown in (141)–(143). The applicative extension ‑n-dìì (-dìì after l) is a realization of -n-tìì. It licenses both a 3rd person, a 1st person, and a 2nd person beneficiary. The pronominal 3sg beneficiary t̪éě is not required to be overtly expressed. The position of the locative‑marked adjunct is variable, preceding or following the verb phrase.
Karko
ɕīj-īk-n-dìì
descend-plr-lk-appl
“the children go down for him into the well”
(141)
ɔ̀=ɕīj-īk-n-dìì
1sg.acc=descend-plr-lk-appl
“the children go down for me into the well”
(142)
kɛ̀ɛ̀-ŋgàl-dìì
make.good-tr.pst-appl
“my existence made your life good.”/ lit. “… made the place good for you” (This is said to children to remind them that they are dependent of their parents and that they have to pay them respect.)
(143)
As shown in this section, applicative constructions in the Kordofan Nubian languages use a single donative verb, which adds an object argument whose referent may be a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary. This simplification of the original system is also attested in Midob (§⁄3.3).
3.5. The Applicative Based on *deen¶
Reflexes of *deen “give to 1st person” are attested in all Nile Nubian applicative constructions. However, in Kordofan Nubian, more precisely in Dilling and Karko, reflexes of *deen are restricted to applicative imperative forms, as shown at the end of this section. Tagle, by contrast, no longer exhibits a reflex of *deen. These are indicators of a restructuring process associated with the weakening and the final loss of the function of *deen. Due to the lack of data, we do not know whether Midob applicative imperative forms are also affected by this process.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
*deen |
ⲇⲉⲛ |
dèen |
deen |
deen |
Table 9. Nile Nubian applicative marker *deen
When Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ “give to 1st person” is employed as a valence operator, the resulting applicative is a bipartite construction composed of V1 – a lexical verb stem marked by the converb marker ‑ⲁ – plus the finite ⲇⲉⲛ as V2. The plural number of a 1st person beneficiary is reflected by the pluractional extension ‑ⳝ (see §⁄4.1). Example (144) also shows that the values of the inflectional suffixes on the main verb – with ‑ⲉ-ⲥⲟ marking the imperative form in a command – have scope over the preceding converb, which means that it is also conceived as an imperative form, even though it does not show the corresponding inflectional suffixes.
Old Nubian
ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲕ̄ⲕⲁ ⲉ̄ⲅⲓⲇⲣⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲡⲗ̄ⲗⲓ̈ⲅⲣⲁ̄ ⲇⲉⳡⳝⲉⲥⲟ
egid-r-ou=ka
ask-prs-1/2pl=acc
deñ-j-e-so
appl>1-plact-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm
“reveal to us the mystery which we ask you” (St 5.3–7)
(144)
The position of the pronominal beneficiary appears to be variable. In (144) the pronominal beneficiary ⲟⲩⲕⲁ immediately precedes the converb, whereas in Nobiin example (145) the theme precedes the converb, the pronominal beneficiary occupying clause-initial position.
Nobiin
“my uncle bought me two jellabiyas”
(145)
Most commonly, applicative constructions assign a beneficiary role to the applied object, as seen in (144) and (145). However, when interacting with an utterance verb like “say, tell,” the applied object is assigned the role of addressee.
ànn-ùu
1sg.gen-grandfather
íig-a-dèn-ô
tell-cnv-appl>1-pt.3sg
“my grandfather told me”
(146)
Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin, which employ the converb marker ‑a, the converbs in Mattokki and Andaandi are unmarked.
Mattokki
sukki-deen-s-u
wash-appl>1-pt2-3
“the woman washed the dress for me”
(147)
Studies of the modern Nile Nubian languages mostly represent the periphrastic applicative constructions as a single word. This may be due to the realization of these biverbal forms as a single prosodic phrase. However, at least in Andaandi, the question clitic te can be inserted between the dependent verb and the finite donative verb, thus providing clear evidence of the bipartite character of the applicative constructions.
Andaandi
“did you send it to me?”
(148)
As for Kordofan Nubian, only Dilling and Karko have retained reflexes of *deen. They appear in two grammatical contexts: i) when employed as lexical transfer verbs, as shown in §⁄3.1; and ii) when used as applicative extensions in imperative forms. Tagle, by contrast, has preserved no reflex of *deen.
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
-nin < -n-tin imp |
– |
-nVn < -n-tèn imp |
Table 10. Kordofan Nubian applicative markers in imperatives based on *deen
The Dilling applicative extension -nin is assumed to originate from the fusion of the linker -(i)n plus the regular reflex of *deen “give to 1st person,” -tin. In the imperative forms ‑nin stands in paradigmatic contrasts with -(i)n-di stemming from the linker -(i)n plus the irregular donative verb ti referring to a 3rd person beneficiary.
The directed transfer verbs kuʃ “take to” and kwata “bring” assign the role of recipient to the applied object. In (149) both the pronominal recipient and the pronominal theme are unexpressed.
Dilling
kuʃ-in-di
take.to-lk-appl>2/3.imp.2sg
“take it to him!”
(149)
o=kwata-n(i)n-(i)
1sg.acc=bring-appl>1-imp.2sg
“bring me water!”
(150)
Similar to Dilling -nin, Karko exhibits with -nVn a realization of the linker -(i)n fused with tèn “give to 1st person,” the latter being a regular reflex of *deen. The applicative extension -nVn contrasts with -n-dìì (after b realized as the allomorph ‑m-bìì) which originates from the linker plus the irregular donative verb tìì and refers to a 3rd person beneficiary.
Interestingly, in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the morphosyntactic behavior of the two objects differs from the behavior of the corresponding objects in the Nile Nubian languages. In the Kordofan Nubian languages, it is the number of the theme argument that triggers the selection of a singular or plural verb stem. In Karko, for instance, a singular theme selects the singular verb stem ɕùù (151), while a plural theme selects the plural stem ɕùb (152). In the Nile Nubian languages, by contrast, it is the number of the beneficiary which interacts with the verb stem, as seen in (144), where the 1st person plural beneficiary selects the ‑(i)j-marked plural verb stem.
Karko
ɕùù-m-bìì
wash.sng-lk-appl>2/3
“wash the cloth for him/them!”
(151)
ɕùb-n-dìì
wash.plr-lk-appl>2/3
“wash the clothes for him!”
(152)
ɕùb-nùn
wash.plr-lk.appl>1
“wash the clothes for us!”
(153)
Summarizing §⁄3, we recognize that the reflexes of the donative verbs *tir and *deen continue to be employed as lexical verbs of transfer. Parallel to this use and bleached of their original semantic content, they have come to serve as valency-increasing grammatical elements in applicative constructions – at least in the Nile Nubian languages. In Kordofan Nubian, however, a simplification process has begun which is associated with the emergence of a new verb ti which is replacing the original donative verbs and is considered to result from a morphological blending of both. The initial consonant of ti appears to be a reflex of the initial of *deen, while the high front vowel of ti stems from the vowel of *tir. In Karko, such CV-shaped lexical items are realized with a long vowel, as confirmed by Karko tìì “give,” in Tagle with a short vowel, tí. This contrast is also attested by Karko dìì “drink” corresponding to Tagle dì, and Karko tìì “die” corresponding to Tagle tì. Note that Karko tìì “die” and tìì “give” are homophones.
4. Verbal Number¶
Verbal number is a grammatical category which “can reflect the number of times an action is done or the number of participants in the action.” That is, it can be sensitive to event number conveying aspectual notions such as intense, repetitive, distributed, or even single actions. It can also interact with the number of intransitive subjects or transitive objects. As verbal number is insensitive to transitive agents, however, this pattern of grammatical relations is a realization of an ergative alignment system.
The Nubian languages exhibit several verbal number marking extensions. Two of them, *-(i)j (§⁄4.1) and *-(i)k (§⁄4.2) are reconstructable because they are attested in both branches of the Nubian family. Other extensions have a more restricted distribution. This is true for the plural object extension ‑ir and ‑(i)r-ir in Mattokki and Andaandi (§⁄6.2), the plural stem extension ‑er attested in the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob, and also for further plural stem suffixes in the Kordofan Nubian languages (§⁄6.5).
4.1. Pluractional *‑(i)j¶
Reflexes of the *‑(i)j-extension are attested in all Nubian languages where it operates as a highly productive morpheme with a wide range of semantic and morphosyntactic properties. Because of its frequent occurrence in these languages, it is suggested that it should be referred to by the term pluractional (glossed as plact) to distinguish it from other plural stem extensions.
While the western Nubian languages reflect the *‑(i)j-extension by -j, -c, -ʃ, or even -ɕ, the Nile Nubian languages reflect it by -j, this consonant being realized as voiced palatal stop [ɟ] which has several allomorphs depending on the preceding or following consonant. When the pluractional extension is attached to a consonant-final verb stem, it is predictably preceded by the epenthetic high front vowel i to prevent certain unadmitted consonant sequences.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
*‑(i)j |
-(ⲓ)ⳝ |
-(i)j |
-(i)j |
-(i)j |
-j ~ ‑c |
-c |
-ɕ ~ ‑j |
-j ~ -c |
Table 11. The pluractional extension *‑(i)j
Browne points out that Old Nubian ‑ⳝ “refers to a plural object (either direct or indirect) and occasionally to a plural subject […] it may also refer to a plural object not specifically identified in the text.” The first example illustrates how -(ⲓ)ⳝ interacts with a transitive plural object, the second shows the interaction of -(ⲓ)ⳝ with an intransitive plural subject.
Old Nubian
ⲕⲁⲡⲟⲡⲓⲅⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲇⲟⲗⲓⳝⲛⲓⲁ̄
kapop-igou=ka
pearl-pl=acc
dol-ij-ni-a
gather-plact-purp-quot
“in order to gather pearls” (SC 4.19)
(154)
ⲇⲓⳝⲟⲗⲅⲟⲩⲛⲁ
di-j-ol-gou=na
die-plact-pst1-pl=gen
“of those who are dead” (SC 8.12–13)
(155)
While Lepsius refers to the -(i)j-extension in Nobiin as “verbum plurale,” Werner uses the term “Pluralobjekt-Erweiterung” (plural object extension). This latter designation is, however, not quite adequate, because ‑(i)j is not confined to interacting with plural objects; it can also be triggered by an intransitive plural subject and by event plurality.
|
Nobiin |
|
|
|
(156) |
ày kàb-ìr |
“I eat” oj sg |
ày kàb-j-ir |
“I eat (a lot or several times)” oj pl |
(157) |
ày nèer-ìr |
“I sleep” |
ày nèer-j-ìr |
“I sleep (several times)” |
Because of the wide range of functions covered by ‑(i)j, Khalil uses the term “verbal plural marker.” Apart from interacting with plural participants and event plurality, the ‑(i)j-extension is also used to signal respect when addressing a person, as Khalil shows.
As for ‑(i)j in Mattokki, Massenbach highlights the fact that it expresses the intensity of an action.
Mattokki
urub-buu-n
have.hole-stat-3sg
“that basket has a hole”
(158)
urub-ij-buu-n
have.hole-plact-stat-3sg
“that basket is thoroughly perforated”
(159)
aa-toog-ij-mun-um
prog-break-plact-neg-neut.3sg
“he does not smash the jar”
(160)
Abdel-Hafiz, in turn, chooses the term “distributive” to refer to the Mattokki ‑(i)j-extension because it “has the effect of spreading the action over time and space.” He also points out that the ‑(i)j-suffix “can indicate the intensity with which an action is performed,” as illustrated in (162).
gull-ij-os-s-u
throw-plact-pfv-pt2-3sg
“s/he threw the money here and there”
(161)
toog-is-s-u
break-plact-pt2-3sg
“the bull broke the door”
(162)
In (162) the ‑(i)j-extension is realized as [is], due to regressive assimilation when followed by the preterite suffix ‑s.
As for the Andaandi suffix ‑(i)j, Armbruster notes that it “usually has an intensive or repetitive force.”
|
Andaandi |
|
|
|
(163) |
war |
“jump” |
war-ij |
“jump continually” |
(164) |
or |
“tear” |
or-ij |
“tear to pieces” |
(165) |
aaw |
“do” |
aw-ij |
“do repetitively” |
tinn-ɛssi=n
her-sister=gen
“s/he plaits her sister’s hair”
(166)
The Dilling reflex of *‑(i)j is ‑j. Kauczor’s examples suggest that it can refer to a plural object but it can also express the intensity or frequency of an event.
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(167) |
mon |
“dislike” |
mon-j-i |
“hate (intensely)” |
(168) |
bel-er |
“throw oj sg to the ground (in wrestling)” |
bel-j-i |
“throw to the ground oj pl or frequently” |
The Tagle reflex of *‑(i)j is realized as the voiced palatal stop [ɟ] or after /l/ as the voiceless palatal stop [c]. It expresses repetitive or multiple events. The examples are provided in the 2nd singular imperative form.
|
Tagle |
|
|
|
(169) |
áŋ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ |
“catch, seize!” oj sg |
áŋ-c-ɪ́ [áɲcɪ́] |
id. rpt |
(170) |
kɪ̀ŋ-ɪ́r-ɪ̀ |
“repair!” oj sg |
kɪ́ŋ-c-ɪ́ [kɪ́ɲcɪ́] |
id. rpt |
kòn-ú-nù=gì
bird-sg-dim.sg=acc
“throw a stone at the bird!”
(171)
kòn-ú-nù=gì
bird-sg-dim.sg=acc
kákár-í=kɔ̀
stone-pl=ins
jɪ́l-c-ɪ́
throw-plact-imp.2sg
“continue to throw stones at the bird!”
(172)
In Karko, the *‑(i)j-extension is realized as voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] after a vowel, and as [Vɟ] after a consonant (except for /n/ and /l/). Following these consonants, *‑(i)j is realized as voiceless alveopalatal fricative [ɕ]. In this case, [ɕ] is difficult to identify as a suffix because the preceding /l/ and /n/ are deleted. The following (unmarked) imperative forms refer to a singular or plural object.
|
Karko |
|
|
|
(173) |
ɕàn |
“buy/sell!” oj sg |
ɕàɕ |
id. oj pl |
(174) |
kìl |
“jump over!” oj sg |
kìɕ |
id. oj pl |
(175) |
t̪ōl-ór |
“swallow!” oj sg |
t̪òɕ |
id. oj pl |
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.
kə̄k-ə̄nd̪=ə́g
stone-sg=acc
ɔ̀g=ɛ̄g-nɛ̀n
1sg.acc=roll-lk.appl>1
“roll the stone for me!”
(178)
ɔ̀g=ɛ̄g-ɛ̄j-nɛ̂n
1sg.acc=roll-plact-lk.appl>1
“roll the stones for me!”
(179)
Proto-Nubian *‑(i)j is reflected by Midob ‑c (allomorph ‑j). According to Werner, this extension marks participant and event plurality, the latter expressing “repetitivity, intensity.” However, he provides only two pairs of contrastive examples. Examples (180) and (181) show that ‑c is sensitive to the plural number of the intransitive subject.
ìi-c-áhàm
come-plact-ind.prf.3pl
“they came”
(181)
The other pair of examples raises the question whether the ‑j-extension is required by an unexpressed pronominal plural object or even by event plurality.
éeg-ìr-wà
answer-caus-ind.cont.1sg
“I answer”
(182)
éeg-ìr-j-wà
answer-caus-plact-ind.cont.1pl
“we answer”
(183)
In addition to its event plurality and participant plurality marking function, Midob -c has come to serve as the marker of the 2nd person imperative plural form. The corresponding singular form is morphologically unmarked.
|
|
|
|
|
(184) |
kóod |
“see” imp 2sg |
kóod-íc |
“see” imp 2pl |
(185) |
sô |
“go” imp 2sg |
sóo-íc [sówíc] |
“go” imp 2pl |
This development of the pluractional extension adopting the additional function of a 2pl imperative marker is an innovation which is unattested in the other Nubian languages.
4.2. The Plural Stem Extension *-(i)k¶
Probably because the *‑(i)k extension is mainly attested on ideophonic verbs, which often play a marginal role in grammars, the plural stem extension *‑(i)k has been overlooked in most Nubian grammars. Compared to the other extensions *‑(i)k is less productive and more lexicalized. Moreover, as far as I can see, it is unattested in Old Nubian and Midob. Despite these deficiencies *‑(i)k has reflexes in both branches of the Nubian language family. For this reason, it is considered to be a reconstructable Proto-Nubian extension.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
*‑(i)k |
– |
-k |
-k |
-k |
-k |
-(i)k |
-(V)k |
– |
Table 12. The plural stem extension *‑(i)k
As Armbruster was the first to provide evidence of the ‑(i)k-extension, this section considers Andaandi data first. Listing a few pairs of verbs Armbruster identifies ‑k as a suffix with “perhaps intensive or factitive” meaning. While it is obvious that the geminate velar stop kk results from the regressive assimilation of the root-final consonant to the following ‑k, it is not clear why the long root vowel is shortened in case of (186) jak-k-i and (187) jok-k-i but unchanged in the case of (188) uuk-k-i.
|
Andaandi |
|
|
|
(186) |
jaag |
“knead” |
jak-k-i |
“compress” |
(187) |
joog |
“grind” |
jok-k-i |
“chew (food)” |
(188) |
uuw |
“call” |
uuk-k-i |
“bark” |
Armbruster provides a list of some twenty Andaandi verbs exhibiting ‑k. Most of them do not have an underived counterpart, though. This suggests that ‑k is no longer a productive morpheme and that it has become lexicalized. In addition to Armbruster, El-Guzuuli has compiled many Andaandi ideophonic verbs, several of them exhibiting the ‑k-extension.
Although Massenbach does not address the ‑k-extension in her Mattokki grammar sketch, her dictionary contains some verbs which exhibit -k, e.g., jok-k(i) “chew”; kil-ik(i) “chirp”; tos-k(i) “cough”; and wak-k(i) “yelp (fox).” The fact that ‑k often occurs on verbs depicting inherently repetitive events like rumble, blaze, chew, chirp, cough, and yelp indicates that it reflects event plurality.
This is also true for Nobiin. Werner’s compilation of Nobiin ideophones contains a list of sixteen “ideophonic verbs imitating animal sounds,” all sharing a low-high tone pattern. Among these verbs are nine which exhibit the -k-extension. Here we present just two examples.
As for Old Nubian, there is no evidence of the stem extension ‑k, not even in combination with the reduplicated stems of apparently onomatopoeic or ideophonic verbs, to which ‑k is often attached in the modern Nile Nubian languages.
The ‑k-extension in the Nile Nubian languages is assumed to be cognate to ‑k in Dilling, ‑(i)k in Tagle and ‑(V)k in Karko. As it is often combined with other plural stem extensions, it is also considered in §⁄6.5. Here a few examples may suffice. They suggest that ‑(V)k is often associated with repetitive events but the examples also show that, due to semantic extension, ‑(V)k can also reflect the number of participants in the action. Both properties are typical of verbal number markers.
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(193) |
ir |
“bear child” tr, oj sg |
ir-k |
id. oj pl, rpt |
|
be |
“get lost” itr, sj sg |
be-k |
id. sj sg, rpt |
|
Tagle |
|
|
|
(194) |
ònd̪ |
“sip, absorb” tr, oj sg |
ónd̪-ík |
id. oj sg, rpt |
|
d̪ád̪d̪ |
“cross, pass” itr, sj sg |
d̪ád̪d̪-ík |
id. sj sg, rpt |
|
Karko |
|
|
|
(195) |
kúʃ-ɛ́ɛ́r |
“hang up” tr, oj sg |
kùj-ùk |
id. oj pl |
|
ʃíl-ɛ̀ɛ́r |
“kindle” tr, oj sg |
ʃìl-ìk |
id. oj pl |
As Midob is still comparatively poorly documented, there is presently no clear evidence of the *-(i)k-extension.
5. Traces of the Archaic Causative Prefix¶
According to Dimmendaal’s typological study, the archaic causative *i-prefix (allomorph *ɪ-) is a historically stable feature, since it is attested in several distinct Nilo-Saharan subgroups, including different branches of the East Sudanic group, i.e., Me’en, Majang, and Southern Nilotic, as well as Central Sudanic, represented by Ma’di.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(196) |
Me’en |
-dibis |
“be full” |
-i-dibis |
“fill” |
(197) |
Majang |
-paak |
“be hot” |
-ɪ-paak |
“heat” |
(198) |
Kipsigiis |
-nɛ́r |
“be fat” |
-ɪ̀-nɛ́ɛ̂r |
“fatten” |
(199) |
Ma’di |
tū |
“climb up” |
ī-tú |
“make climb up, promote” |
5.1. The Causative Prefix in the Nubian Languages¶
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). 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-, 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.
A closer look at the examples below reveals that when the causative prefix is attached to a verb root, it tends to adopt the quality of the root vowel. The root vowel, in turn, often adopts the quality of the original high front vowel prefix *i-. This process is known as paradigmatic displacement, which is probably motivated by the canonical (C)V(V)(C) shape of Nubian roots. When they are followed by another syllable, this second syllable tends to be reanalyzed as a suffix. Such a syllabic suffix is usually realized with an epenthetic high front vowel i.
PN |
ON |
No |
Ma |
An |
Dil |
Ta |
Ka |
Mi |
*u- ~ o- |
ⲟⲩ- |
u- |
u- |
u- |
u-, o- |
u-, e- |
ə-, ɔ-, u- |
u- |
Table 13. The archaic causative prefix *u- ~ o-
In Old Nubian, for instance, there is evidence of an ⲟⲩ-prefix on transitive verb stems, whereas this prefix is absent on the cognate intransitive stems.
|
Old Nubian |
|
(200) |
ⲧⲟⲣ, ⲧⲟⲩⲣ, ⲧⲟ(ⲣ)ⲁⲣ |
“enter” itr |
|
ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲣ̄, ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲟⲩⲣ, ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲁⲣ |
“lay, put, hold, deposit” tr |
Another intransitive verb root, ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ “descend,” attests two derived stems with increased valency: one stem is derived by the ⲟⲩ-prefix plus the causative ‑(ⲁ)ⲣ- ~ -ⲟⲩⲣ-suffix; the other stem is extended by the causative ‑ⲕⲣ̄-suffix but without the ⲟⲩ-prefix. Presumably the absence, i.e., loss of the ⲟⲩ-prefix and the suffixation of the productive ‑ⲕⲣ̄-suffix (see §⁄2.2) was triggered by the semantic fading of the causative function of the ⲟⲩ-prefix.
|
|
|
(201) |
ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ, ⲥⲟⲅⲅ |
“descend” itr |
|
ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲕ-(ⲁ)ⲣ, ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲕ-ⲟⲩⲣ |
“place” tr |
|
ⲥⲟⲩⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ |
“cause to descend” tr |
The u-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the modern Nile Nubian languages: e.g., u-dir (Nobiin); u-ndur (Mattokki and Andaandi); and u-skir (Nobiin, Mattokki, Andaandi). Lepsius recognizes that Andaandi u-ndire, u-ndure is a cognate of Nobiin u-dire. The addition of the nasal attested in u-ndir(e) and u-ndur(e) is due to epenthesis. It is conceivable that the derived unattested stem u-toor underwent a number of phonological and morphological changes, including vowel assimilation, the insertion of the epenthetic n, which has triggered the voicing of the following original root-initial t, and the re-analysis of the root-final Vr sequence as the causative ‑ir-suffix (see §⁄2.1). Two distinct developments are assumed: utoor > utor > utur > untur > undur, as attested in Mattokki and Andaandi, and utoor > utur > udur > udir in Nobiin.
|
|
|
|
(202) |
An, Ma |
too(r) |
“enter” itr |
|
No |
toor-e |
“enter” itr |
|
No |
u-dir-e |
“take to, lay down, put into, insert” tr |
|
Ma |
u-ndur-e |
“put in, name, dress” tr |
|
An |
u-ndur-e |
“put in, introduce, insert” tr |
The extension of the verb stem u-sk with the causative ‑ir results from a secondary process that started when the causative prefix lost its productivity.
|
|
|
|
(203) |
No |
sukk-e |
“descend” itr |
|
No, Ma, An |
u-sk-ir-e |
“put down, lay down” tr |
|
Ma, An |
u-sk-ir-e |
“give birth” tr |
As for Kordofan Nubian, Kauczor was the first to recognize the extension of verb stems by means of prefixes (“Stammbildung durch Präfixe”). As they introduce a causer, the Dilling u- and o-prefixes are assumed to be reflexes of the archaic *i-causative.
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(204) |
jir |
“lie down” itr |
u-jir |
“lay down” tr |
(205) |
tor |
“enter” itr |
o-tir |
“insert, put into” tr |
These two verb pairs have cognates in Tagle. A native speaker, however, would not perceive the verb root jèr to be the base of ù-jír or ù-jèr, nor t̪ʊ́r to be the base of è-t̪ír, since the initial vowel no longer operates as a productive prefix. Tagle examples (206) and (207) are given in the 2sg imperative form, marked by an ‑i-suffix.
|
Tagle |
|
(206) |
jèr-í |
“lie down!” itr |
|
ù-jír-ì |
“put down, lay down!” tr, oj sg |
|
ù-jèr-í |
“put down, lay down!” tr, oj pl |
(207) |
t̪ʊ́r-ɪ́ |
“enter, begin!” itr |
|
è-t̪ír-ì |
“insert, put in, start!” tr |
Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put down” and “enter”/“insert” exist in Karko as well. The archaic Nilo-Saharan *i-prefix is reflected by the initial vowel of the transitive items, which is associated with a particular form of vowel harmony in which the quality of the root vowel is adopted by the short suffix vowel due to lag assimilation: e.g., òk-ót̪ “bean” sg; ūk-ūnd̪ “fire” pl; ɕə̀t-ə̀d “closed” ptc sg. The imperative forms ə̄-t̪ə́r, ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r, ū-júr suggest that the initial vowels of these verbs are re-analyzed as root vowels and that the verb-final Vr sequence is conceived of as a ‑Vr-suffix (see §⁄2.1). Karko imperatives are marked by a low tone when the verb stems are underived: e.g., t̪òr and jɛ̀r. The imperative forms of verbs derived by ‑Vr, however, can have different tone patterns depending on the tone class to which the verbs belong. The contrast between singular and plural imperative forms is unmarked by dedicated suffixes but often expressed by vowel alternation, as (208) ə̄-t̪ə́r vs. ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r illustrate.
|
Karko |
|
(208) |
t̪òr |
“enter!” itr, imp 2sg |
|
ə̄-t̪ə́r |
“enter, insert, start, cause!” tr, imp 2sg |
|
ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r |
“enter, insert, start, cause!” tr, imp 2pl |
(209) |
jɛ̀r |
“lie down, go to sleep!” itr, imp 2sg |
|
ū-júr |
“put down!” tr, imp 2sg |
kám-m-bíl
eat.plr-lk-first
“eat first then go to sleep!”
(210)
“put the bag on the chair!”
(211)
Because of their phonological and semantic similarities, the Midob verb stems súkk “descend” and ú-kk “give birth” can be identified as cognates of Nile Nubian sukk- “descend” and u-skir- “put down, lay down, give birth”; see examples (201) and (203) above.
|
Midob |
|
(212) |
súkk-ihèm |
“I descended” |
|
ú-kk-áhèm |
“I gave birth” |
The initial vowel of the Midob verb stem ú-kk is assumed to reflect the archaic causative prefix. It is conceivable that due to this prefix and the preferred monosyllabic structure of lexical roots, the unattested bisyllabic verb stem ú-súkk has undergone some changes involving the deletion of the second vowel and the fricative /s/. The deletion of /s/ before /k/ is also observed in other Midob lexical items: e.g., ùkúdí “dust, sand” < PN *Vskidi; and úfúdí ~ úkúdí < PN *VskVdi. The fact that the geminated velar of súkk is retained in ú-kk corroborates the assumed derivational relationship between these two stems.
5.2. The Causative Prefix and Causative Suffixes in Ama¶
Ama and Afitti verbs commonly exhibit two bases which used to be referred to as “definite” and “indefinite” aspect stems. In recent studies by Rilly and Norton, the definite and indefinite are recognized as perfective and imperfective aspect stems, respectively.
As in the Nubian languages, verbal derivational extensions in Ama are usually suffixed to the verb. Therefore, a prefixed extension such as the causative a- is a remarkable deviation from the suffixing pattern.
|
Ama |
|
|
|
(213) |
a-t̪os/a-kwos |
“suckle” |
t̪os/kwos |
“suck” |
(214) |
a-mɔ |
“raise” |
mɔ |
“rise” |
Stevenson points out that the a-marked causative may “also be combined with the ɪg form,” which apparently has a causative function as well. Tucker & Bryan, too, note that the causative a-prefix is sometimes combined with the ‑ɪg- and ‑ɛg-extensions and that, in addition to the causative function, these suffixes express the meaning of “action directed towards.” For this reason, Norton uses the term “directional” rather than causative. For the ‑ɪd-suffix on tam see §⁄6.7.
|
|
|
|
|
(215) |
a-t̪al-ɪg |
“feed” |
t̪al |
“eat” |
(216) |
a-tam-ɪd-ɛg |
“feed” |
tam |
“eat” |
Interestingly, Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi have documented another form of the causative verb “suckle” in Ama. Its two causative stems do not exhibit the a-prefix but only the causative ‑ìg-suffix.
|
|
|
|
|
(217) |
t̪ɔʃ-ìg/kwɔʃ-ìg |
“suckle” |
t̪os-o/kwoʃ-ì |
“suck” |
Thus, in Ama there are three alternative patterns of causative marking:
- the causative stems are solely marked by the a-prefix, as attested by (213) a-t̪os/a-kwos and (214) a-mɔ;
- the causative is simultaneously marked by the a-prefix and the ‑ɪg- or ‑(ɪd-)ɛg-suffix, as in (215) a-t̪al-ɪg and (216) a-tam-ɪd-ɛg; and
- the causative is only marked by the ‑ìg-suffix, as (217) t̪ɔʃ-ìg/kwɔʃ-ìg show.
It is quite conceivable that the three patterns reflect three stages in the historical development from a prefixing pattern to a suffixing pattern. The coincidence of the causative being marked by both the a-prefix and the ‑ɪg- or ‑ɛg-suffix, as found in a-t̪al-ɪg and a-tam-ɪd-ɛg, represents an intermediate step in that restructuring process.
The velar consonant of the Ama suffix ‑ɪg or ‑ɛg is strongly reminiscent of the velar consonant that is part of the Nubian causative suffixes, Nobiin ‑kìr, Mattokki ‑igir, Andaandi ‑(i)gir, Dilling ‑eg-ir and ‑ig-er, and Midob ‑éek and ‑èek (see §⁄2.2). Since bound morphemes are not easily borrowed, these Nubian causative suffixes are considered to be cognates of the Ama ‑ɪg and ‑ɛg causative suffixes. At present, this assumption cannot be corroborated by data from Afitti, since the Afitti verb stems documented so far do not show any evidence of an ‑ɪg- or ‑ɛg-suffix.
Concluding this section, we recognize that both Nubian and Ama exhibit a petrified causative prefix. Since remnants of this prefix are also found in Central Sudanic and several branches of East Sudanic, they provide comparative evidence of the genetic relationships between these languages. Along with the prefixed Nubian negation marker *m- (see §⁄5.1), the causative prefixes in Nubian and Ama suggest that these languages have undergone a typological change from prefixing to suffixing languages. These prefixes in Nubian and Ama corroborate Dimmendaal’s hypothesis, which assumes “that the common ancestor of Central Sudanic and Northeastern Nilo-Saharan was typologically more similar to the Moru-Madi languages within the Central Sudanic branch than to any other Nilo-Saharan subgroup found today.”
6. Verb Extensions with a Restricted Distribution¶
Some verbal extensions have a restricted distribution because they occur only in a single Nubian language or in a subgroup of the Nubian family.
6.1. Nile Nubian Passive Extensions¶
Unlike the languages of the western branch, the Nile Nubian languages have dedicated passive extensions. They comprise Old Nubian ‑(ⲓ)ⲧⲁⲕ, Nobiin ‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ, Mattokki ‑takk, and Andaandi ‑katt. Nobiin and Matokki ‑dakk ~ ‑takk suggest that Old Nubian ‑ⲧⲁⲕ (although spelled with a single ⲕ), used to be realized with a geminate kk, too.
Old Nubian
ⲁ̇ⲉⲧ︥ⲧⲁⲕⲁⲧⲁⲙⲏ
aeit-tak-a-ta-mē
insult-pass-pred-neg-jus.sg
“don’t you be insulted!” (M 6.11)
(218)
Apart from ‑dakk ~ ‑takk, Nobiin has another passive extension, -daŋ, which, according to Reinisch, is restricted to the Fadicca variety. As far as we know today, it is unattested in Old Nubian. Both Reinisch and Lepsius provide examples of ‑daŋ being attached to original Nobiin items and even to borrowings from Arabic as in (220), which attest the productivity of the extension. Due to the phonetic similarities of ‑daŋ and the inchoative ‑aŋ, Reinisch and Lepsius conceive of ‑daŋ as being composed of a d-prefix plus -aŋ. According to Reinisch, d- has a “reflexive-passive” function.
|
Nobiin |
|
|
|
(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.”
aadem=in=doorro
man=gen=because.of
aaw-dakk-on
do-pass-pt.3sg
santee=n=doorro
sabbat=gen=because.of
aaw-daŋ-kum-mun
do-pass-pt-neg
“the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”
(221)
As for Mattokki, Massenbach points out that the passive extension is realized as [takk] or, more rarely, as [katt].
Mattokki
buuwe-tákk-imn-um
call-pass-neg-prs.3sg
“he is not called”
(222)
Abdel-Hafiz only mentions the -takk variant and its allomorph -cakk which is used after c. It can be used with transitive verbs, but also with intransitive verbs such as neer “sleep.”
neer-takk-is-u
sleep-pass-pt-3sg
“it was slept here”
(223)
Andaandi
kuur-katt-in
learn-pass-3sg
“the Qur’an is learnt / the Qur’an can be learnt”
(224)
Both Matokki ‑takk and Andaandi ‑katt are productive extensions, as shown by their use with Arabic loanwords.
|
Mattokki |
|
(225) |
gaffir-takk |
“be forgiven” |
|
Andaandi |
|
(226) |
hamd=ee-katt |
“be praised” |
As for the origin of the passive extensions various suggestions have been advanced. Reinisch proposes two rather vague hypotheses:
- katt has developed from k-att, i.e., from the accusative marker plus the verb att “bring.”
- Andaandi katt “wrap, role (cigarette)” corresponds to Nobiin kand “wrap, dress” or takk with the same meaning.
Reinisch’s second hypothesis is supported by Armbruster, who suggests, too, that the Andaandi passive suffix -katt originates from the verb katt “wrap.” Smagina, in turn, argues that Old Nubian tak(k) derives from the short form of the 3sg pronoun accusative, the long form being takka. Although the incorporation of a pronoun as part of a passivizing strategy is conceivable, as Van Gerven Oei points out, the presence of Nobiin ‑daŋ as a variant of ‑dakk ~ ‑takk does not support the assumption of the Old Nubian -tak(k) passive extension originating in the 3sg pronoun.
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).
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, 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.”
It is also possible that Nobiin ‑daŋ and ‑dakk ~ ‑takk as well as Matokki ‑takk are based on tag “get covered” incremented by the extension ‑k, i.e., -tag-k > -takk. In the course of grammaticalization the initial t may have undergone weakening, i.e., t > d which has led to the realization of ‑takk as ‑dakk. It is also conceivable that during the assumed grammaticalization process, one of the Nobiin varieties retained tag without extending it by –k. Considering that the initial and final consonant of tag may have been weakened, i.e., t > d and g > ŋ, it is possible that this variant of the passive extensions has come to be realized as ‑daŋ.
Of course, we cannot exclude that Andaandi ‑katt does not originate from kant but rather from the metathesis of ‑takk > -katt (even though the motivation for this phonotactic change is as yet unclear). That suggestion has the advantage of conceiving the passive extensions in the Nile Nubian languages to have a common origin in a single verb, tag “get covered.” The semantic notions of this intransitive verb fit well with its grammaticalization as a passive marker.
Unlike the Nile Nubian languages, the Kordofan Nubian languages do not have a dedicated passive extension. Rather, as Comfort and Jakobi have shown, the passive and other non-basic intransitive constructions are based on verbal plural stems (see §⁄6.5).
As for Midob, Werner denies that there is “a real passive.” He points out that semantically passive notions are either expressed by a stative or a 3pl active verb form. The latter option is cross-linguistically quite common, it also exists in Old Nubian and Nobiin. As the 3pl element “is not understood to refer to any specific group of individuals,” it is known as “generalized subject” or “impersonal.”
6.2. The Mattokki and Andaandi Plural Object ‑ir- and ‑(i)r-ir-Extensions¶
The plural object extensions ‑ir and ‑(i)r-ir are restricted to Mattokki and Andaandi. Unlike the pluractional *-(i)j (§⁄4.1) and the ‑er-extension §⁄6.3, these extensions have a strongly restricted function because they are only selected when the referent of the transitive object is plural. That is, they do not interact with plural subjects of intransitive clauses. Both Massenbach and Armbruster account for this productive suffix, but Abdel-Hafiz does not mention it in his Mattokki grammar.
toog-ir-s-im
break-ploj-pt2-1sg
“I smashed them”
(228)
el-r-un [ellun]
find-neut-1pl
“we find it”
(229)
el-ir-r-un
find-ploj-neut-1pl
“we find them”
(230)
Armbruster observes that Andaandi ‑ir, which is sometimes reduplicated and realized as [irir], additionally has distributive connotations since it is “used when the verb’s object is a plural that is regarded as a series of singulars.” But when discussing (231) and (232), mother tongue speaker El-Shafie El-Guzuuli pointed out that he does not perceive a semantic difference between them.
Andaandi
“take (each of) these away!”
(231)
“take (each of) these away!”
(232)
Unlike the reduplicated causative ‑ir-ir-extension, which is realized as [iddi], the reduplicated plural object extension ‑(i)r-ir is never pronounced as [iddi]. This finding supports Armbruster’s assumption that the plural object extension is not identical in origin with the causative *-(i)r-extension (see §⁄2.1).
6.3. The Kordofan Nubian and Midob Plural Stem Extension ‑er¶
Another verbal number marking device is represented by the highly productive extension -er (glossed as plr). It is confined to the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob. Kauczor was not only the first to recognize the Dilling prefixes u- and o- (§⁄5.1), he also noticed that the Dilling ‑er-extension is used in four distinct grammatical contexts:
- when a transitive verb refers to a plural object;
- when an intransitive verb refers to a plural subject;
- when a transitive verb is used without a syntactic object; and
- when a transitive verb has passive meaning.
The first two contexts indicate that the interaction of ‑er with an intransitive plural subject and a transitive plural object represents an ergative alignment pattern. In this respect, the plural stem extension ‑er is comparable to the pluractional *‑(i)j (§⁄4.1), which is associated with the same pattern of grammatical relations. The last two contexts suggest that ‑er is associated with a low degree of transitivity (in the sense of Hopper & Thompson’s concept of transitivity as a scalar value).
Kauczor also points out that some verbs are always extended by ‑er. This finding has been confirmed in recent studies of other Kordofan Nubian languages, particularly Uncu, Tagle, and Tabaq where verbs with a lexicalized ‑er-extension often express inherently repetitive events, such as “stutter” and “bark.” Some examples from Tagle may suffice to illustrate how the plural stem extension is used. In an intransitive clause, ‑er refers to the plural subject.
ékk-ér-ó
urinate-plr-pst.1pl
“we urinated”
(234)
In a transitive clause, ‑er refers to the plural object.
kér-nd̪ú=gí
fence-pl=acc
kíl-ér-ó
jump-plr-pst.1pl
“we jumped the fences”
(236)
The ‑er-extension also occurs in transitivity alternations. Compare the transitive clause in (237) to the agent-preserving clause in (238) and to the patient-preserving non-basic intransitive clause in (239).
“the shepherd milks the goats” / “the shepherd milks goats”
(237)
“the goat milks, i.e., produces milk” / “a goat milks, i.e., produces milk”
(239)
Depending on the semantics of the verb and the semantic properties of its arguments, non-basic intransitivity constructions may even have a facilitative or passive reading.
“the baobab is easy to climb” / “the baobab gets climbed”
(240)
Some transitive and intransitive verbs expressing inherently repetitive events are always marked by the ‑er-extension, as shown by the following 2sg/2pl imperative forms of Tagle. On these verbs the ‑er-extension has become lexicalized.
|
|
|
(241) |
t̪ʊ́m-ɛ́r-ɪ́ sg/t̪ʊ́m-ɛ́r-ɛ́ pl |
“stutter!” |
(242) |
bóg-ér-ì sg/bóg-ér-è pl |
“bark!” |
(243) |
ùr-ér-ì sg/ùr-ér-è pl |
“light a fire!” |
The morphologically unmarked imperative examples from Karko show that the ‑er-extension is realized with an unspecified vowel which adopts the quality of the root vowel. Segmentally, it resembles the causative extension ‑Vr (see §⁄2.1).
|
Karko |
|
(244) |
hə̄ɲ-ə́r |
“greet!” |
(245) |
ūl-úr |
“breastfeed!” |
(246) |
ɕàb-àr |
“wipe off!” |
(247) |
ɛ̀b-ɛ̀r |
“wash (hands, body)!” |
The ‑er-extension is often found combined with other verbal number marking devices, most frequently with the alternation of the root vowel. Tabaq examples (248)–(250) also show that ‑er may occur in paradigmatic contrast with the singular stem extension ‑ɪr ~ ‑ʊr. This indicates that extensions which mark verbal number are not exclusively employed to express plurality; they can also refer to single participants and events. Extensions marking singular verb stems have exclusively been documented in the Kordofan Nubian branch.
|
Tabaq |
|
|
|
sng |
plr |
Gloss |
(248) |
dʊ́t̪-ʊ̀r |
dʷát̪-ɛ̀r- |
“cut across” |
(249) |
ʃɔ́ɲk-ɪ́r |
ʃʷáɲk-ɛ́r |
“dry” |
(250) |
kʷɔ́ɔ́k-ɪ́r ~ kʷɔɔk-ʊ́r |
kʷáák-ɛ́r |
“hide” |
Midob ‑er is obviously a cognate of the Kordofan Nubian ‑er-extension. Werner claims that it is “no longer operative and can neither be clearly identified with plurality of object only.” The examples below show that ‑er is, in fact, sensitive to the plural subject of an intransitive verb, as shown by “sit” and “stop,” and to the plural indirect object (i.e., the recipient) of the ditransitive “give” verb.
|
Midob |
|
(251) |
tèl-ér-hàm |
“they sat down” (several people) |
(252) |
tèkk-ér-íc |
“stop!” itr imp 2pl |
(253) |
tìr-îc |
“give to him!” imp 2pl |
(254) |
tìr-èr-îc |
“give to them!” imp 2pl |
Interestingly, the Kordofan Nubian and Midob ‑er-extension is phonetically and semantically comparable to the Ama ‑r-suffix, which, according to Norton, has distributive connotations, i.e., it distributes the event either over several object referents or over a series of sub-events. It is always preceded by another distributive suffix, ‑Vd̪, and the theme vowel a. The resulting complex ‑Vd̪-a-r-suffix in Ama corresponds to the Afitti verbal plural suffix (-tə)-r. As distributivity is closely associated with plurality, it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob plural stem extension ‑er is a cognate of Ama (-Vd̪-a)-r and Afitti (-tə)-r. Moreover, these extensions may be related to the Mattokki and Andaandi extensions ‑ir and ‑(i)r-ir, which are sensitive to plural objects and distributive events (see §⁄6.2). The different but semantically related functions of these extensions – verbal plural, distributive, plural object – indicate that this extension is of considerable age.
6.4. The Kordofan Nubian Reciprocal ‑in-Extension¶
Whereas the Nile Nubian languages and Midob express reciprocal notions lexically, the Kordofan Nubian languages exhibit a productive reciprocal extension which is attached to plural verb stems. Reciprocal constructions are intransitive; for this reason, in Tagle the intransitive past marker is required, ‑(ì)bɛ̀l, which contrasts with the transitive past marker ‑(í)nàl.
Tagle
kòn‑nú‑nù=gì
bird-sg-dim.sg=acc
áŋ‑ínàl‑à-m [áŋàlàm]
seize-tr.pst-pl-pst.3
“the people seized the bird by hand”
(255)
àɲ-c-ìn-ìbɛ̀l-ʌ̀-m
seize-plr-rcp-itr.pst-pl-pst.3
“the people seized each other”
(256)
In Karko the reciprocal extension has several allomorphs. Because of its underspecified vowel the extension ‑Vn adopts the quality of the stem vowel. As in Tagle, the reciprocal is attached to the plural verb stem, which signals low transitivity. In the past it requires the intransitive past marker -ɲj.
Karko
fɛ́t̪-ɛ́n-ɲj-ɛ̀ɛ̀
throw.plr-rcp-itr.pst-3pl
“the people threw spears at each other”
(257)
The Kordofan Nubian reciprocal ‑in-suffix looks strikingly similar to the Ama dual suffixes ‑ɪ̄n and ‑ɛ̄n. According to Norton’s internal reconstruction, Ama ‑ɪ̄n is the older form, which originates from an old reciprocal suffix. He also points out that similar reciprocal extensions are attested in several East Sudanic languages. For these reasons, Kordofan Nubian ‑in and Ama ‑ɪ̄n can be considered cognates, providing another piece of evidence for the genetic relationship between these languages. So far, we do not know whether Afitti exhibits a comparable extension.
6.5. Further Plural Stem Extensions in the Kordofan Nubian Languages¶
The Kordofan Nubian languages are rich in verbal number marking devices. In addition to the reflexes of the productive pluractional *-(i)j and plural stem marker ‑er there are several further less productive extensions as well as alternations of the root vowel, tonal alternations, and reduplication of the root. Some verbs have a single marked plural stem which is sensitive both to repetitive events and plural objects, other verbs have two distinct plural stems, one interacting with event number, the other one interacting with the intransitive plural subject or transitive plural object.
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(258) |
bur |
“get solid” itr, sj sg |
bur-k-iɲ |
id. sj pl |
(259) |
ʃoɲ |
“get dry” itr, sj sg |
ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ |
id. sj pl |
(260) |
dil |
“gather” itr, sj pl |
dil-t-ig |
id. sj pl, rpt |
The stacking of plural stem extensions (i.e., the use of more than one suffix) is a common phenomenon in the Kordofan Nubian languages, as attested by Dilling (258) bur-k-iɲ, (259) ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ, and (260) dil-t-ig, as well as Tagle (261) èl-t-ìg-ì, (262) ét̪-íŋ-k-í, and (264) dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́. While (261) and (262) display 2sg imperative forms marked by a final ‑i, (263) and (264) represent the 2sg/2pl imperative forms, marked by ‑i/ ‑e ~ ‑ɛ.
|
Tagle |
|
|
|
(261) |
él-ír-ì |
“reach!” tr, oj sg |
èl-t-ìg-ì |
id. oj sg, rpt |
(262) |
èt̪-ír-ì |
“enter!” tr, oj sg |
ét̪-íŋ-k-í |
id. oj pl, rpt |
(263) |
nòm-èr-í |
“run!” itr, sj sg |
nòm-k-é |
id. sj pl, rpt |
(264) |
dí |
“stand up, get up!” itr, sj sg |
dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́ |
id. sj pl, rpt |
Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including ‑t-Vg, ‑kVn, and ‑(V)k, which are often combined with other formal devices such as tonal alternation and the reduplication of the verb root. The examples also illustrate that some verbs exhibit more than one plural stem, one stem interacting with participant number and the other with event number. The “fact that there is usually more than one formal strategy” for marking verbal number suggests “that this grammatical domain is subject to a high degree of communicative dynamism.”
|
Karko |
|
|
|
|
|
(265) |
kūg-úr |
“fix, connect!” tr, oj sg |
kùg-t-ùg |
id. oj pl, rpt |
|
|
(266) |
dìí-r |
“sink!” itr, sj sg |
dìì-kìn |
id. sj pl |
dīī-dìì-k |
id. rpt |
(267) |
nwàá-r |
“run!” itr, sj sg |
nwàà-kàn |
id. sj pl |
dòɕ |
id. rpt |
Like the ‑er-extension (§⁄6.3), the suffixes introduced in the present section can mark plural verb stems which are required in transitivity alternations. For this reason, they are glossed just like ‑er by plr. Here are two pairs of Karko examples contrasting transitive and non-basic intransitive clauses. The latter are illustrated by the agent-preserving clause (269) and the patient-preserving clause (271).
“the people gather the sorghum (ears)”
(268)
“the people gather on the mountain”
(269)
“the man wakes the children up”
(270)
6.6. The Kordofan Nubian ‑ad̪- and Midob ‑át-Extensions¶
These productive extensions, Kordofan Nubian ‑ad̪ and Midob ‑át, are assumed to be cognates, first, because non-initial Kordofan Nubian d̪ can correspond to Midob alveolar t, and second, because these suffixes have similar functions, since they are both associated with decreased valency. However, ‑át and ‑ad̪ differ in that the first is a verbal extension which does not trigger a change of the word category, while the latter turns the verb into a “verbal adjective,” as Kauczor suggests, or rather a resultative participle. When the morpheme ‑ad̪ attaches to verbal stems, the outcome is a resultative participle expressing states that result from previous events which have affected or changed the entity whose properties are designated by the participle.
The ‑ad̪-extension is a portmanteau morpheme since it cumulatively expresses decreased valency and singular number. The corresponding plural morphemes, Dilling ‑e, Tagle ‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ, and Karko ‑Vn are portmanteau morphemes too, as they cover both decreased valency and plural number. However, only Tagle ‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ and Karko ‑Vn are etymologically related to each other, while Dilling ‑e appears to have a different origin.
|
Dilling |
|
|
|
(272) |
bar/bar-k-iɲ |
“be tired” |
bar-k-ad/bar-k-e |
“tired” |
(273) |
beʃ-ir/bej |
“damage” |
beʃ-ig-ad/bej-ig-e |
“damaged” |
(274) |
em |
“wash” |
em-ad/em-e |
“washed” |
The Tagle participles are regularly associated with a low tone pattern. The singular forms are marked by complex suffixes composed of the participle marker plus a vowel suffix marking number, ‑ad̪-u ~ -ʌd̪-ʊ and the plural forms by ‑an-i ~ -ʌn-ɪ. This means that Tagle participles are double marked for number. The participles can serve as attributive adjectives modifying a noun phrase or as predicative adjectives in copula clauses.
Tagle
èt̪-ìŋk-àd̪-ù
enter-plr-ptc.sg-sg
“the closed door”
(275a)
èt̪-ìŋk-àn-ì
enter-plr-ptc.pl-pl
“the closed doors”
(275b)
dùy-àd̪-ù-ní [dùyàdùní]
sew-ptc.sg-sg-cop
“the cloth is sewn”
(276a)
dùy-àn-ì-ní
sew-ptc.pl-pl-cop
“the clothes are sewn”
(276b)
Similar to Tagle, Karko participles are characterized by a low tone pattern. They are inflected for singular by ‑Vd̪ and for plural by ‑Vn, the vowel V adopting the quality of the stem vowel.
|
Karko |
|
(277) |
kàm-àd̪/kàm-àn |
“eaten” |
(278) |
t̪ɔ̀f-ɔ̀d̪/t̪ɔ̀f-ɔ̀n |
“killed” |
Interestingly, most of the participles illustrated here exhibit a marked plural stem: e.g., Dilling bar-k-ad/bar-k-e “tired,” beʃ-ig-ad/bej-ig-e “damaged”; Tagle èt̪-ìŋk-àd̪-ù/èt̪‑ìŋk-àn-ì “closed.” The corresponding singular stems are Dilling bar, beʃ-ir and Tagle èt̪-ír, respectively. The Karko examples kàm-àd̪/kàm-àn “eaten” and tɔ̀f-ɔ̀d̪/tɔ̀f-ɔ̀n “killed,” however, exhibit suppletive plural stems, the corresponding singular stems being kə̀l and fúr, respectively. The plural verb stems are selected because they are associated with low transitivity (which is also addressed in §⁄6.3).
As for the Midob ‑át-extension, we suggest an analysis different from Werner’s. On first sight, (279)–(281) support his claim that ‑(r)ati derives reflexive verbs.
|
Midob |
|
|
|
(279) |
èeb-àh-êm |
“I washed” tr |
èeb-árát-ìh-èm |
“I washed myself” refl |
(280) |
tə̀g-ə̀n-dóo-h-èm |
“I covered” tr |
tə̀g-rát-ìh-èm |
“I covered myself” refl |
(281) |
pìss-ìr-h-êm |
“I have sprinkled” tr |
pìss-ìrát-íh-èm |
“I sprinkled myself” refl |
However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not express reflexive notions. They suggest that ‑r-at is a complex morpheme composed of ‑(i)r ~ ‑(a)r plus ‑át. Whereas the first component looks like a reflex of the causative *-(i)r, the second component ‑át can be identified as a valency-decreasing device deriving intransitive from transitive verbs.
|
|
|
|
|
(282) |
òss-ír-hèm |
“I soaked” tr |
òss-ìr-át-ùm |
“it is soaking” |
(283) |
tə̀g-ə̀r-hèm |
“I closed, covered” tr |
tə̀g-r-át-òn-ûm |
“it was covered” |
It is still conceivable that ‑at can also trigger a reflexive interpretation, especially when it is attached to verbs with an animate and agentive subject such as “wash,” “cover,” and “sprinkle.”
If Kordofan Nubian ‑ad̪ and Midob ‑át are cognate valency-decreasing morphemes, are they related to the passive extensions, Old Nubian ‑tak and Nobiin ‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ? Although the metathesis of -ad̪ > -d̪a and ‑át > -tá is conceivable, none of these suffixes exhibits a velar which would match the final consonants of ‑tak and ‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ. For this reason, there is too little evidence supporting the assumption of a common origin of these extensions.
6.7. The Midob ‑íd-Extension¶
Tucker & Bryan identify a ‑Vda-suffix which expresses “plural action.”
|
|
|
|
|
(284) |
ʊkk-a |
“bear” |
ʊkk-ʊda |
“bear often” |
(285) |
ökk-a |
“bear twins” |
ökk-ʊda |
“bear twins often” |
(286) |
acc-a |
“bite” |
acc-ida |
“bite often” |
Werner, in turn, recognizes this suffix as ‑íd, ending in an alveolar [d]. His examples suggest that the final ‑a on ‑Vda is not part of this suffix. Similarly to Tucker & Bryan, he describes this suffix as expressing “plurality of action.”
|
|
|
|
|
(287) |
úkk-ánònùm |
“she has given birth” |
úkk-íd-ánònùm |
“she has given birth (to many children)” |
A phonetically and semantically similar VC-shaped extension is attested in Ama by ‑ɪ́d̪. According to Norton, the Ama extension ‑ɪ́d̪ has a distributive function. It is sensitive to a plural object participant, as shown in (289) or to a plural subject participant as in (290). Moreover, it can express an event distributed in time over a series of sub-events, as in (291). Norton considers ‑ɪ́d̪, with these distributional functions, as a type of pluractional.
“we (three or more) each cried”
(290)
“we hit until we had hit five children”
(291)
Midob is spoken in Darfur and Ama in the Nuba Mountains. In view of the geographical distance between these languages today, (recent) direct borrowing is unlikely. Considering that the non-initial dental d̪ and the non-initial alveolar d may correspond to each other, the striking semantic and phonetic resemblances between Ama ‑ɪ́d̪ and Midob ‑íd suggest that these suffixes are cognates. They represent another piece of evidence for the common genetic origins of Ama and the Nubian languages. Unfortunately, as in the case of the causative ‑ɪg- or ‑ɛg-suffix and the reciprocal/dual suffix ‑ɪn, corroborating evidence from Afitti is (still) missing.
7. Conclusions¶
If we disregard the predicable epenthetic vowel, we recognize that six of the seven reconstructable derivational extensions either consist of a single consonant C or of a CV(V)C pattern. While the C-shaped extensions include *‑(i)r, the pluractional *‑(i)j, and the plural stem extension *‑(i)k, the CV(V)C pattern is represented by the causative morpheme *‑(i)gir and the applicative morphemes *tir and *deen. The latter pattern coincides with the canonical syllable pattern of Nubian lexical roots, thus corroborating the assumed origin of *(i)gir, *tir, and *deen from lexical items, or, more precisely, from lexical verbs.
Whereas *‑(i)r, *‑(i)j, *‑(i)k, *‑(i)gir, *tir, and *deen can be traced back to Proto-Nubian, the causative *u- ~ o-prefix and its cognate, the Ama a-prefix, are assumed to originate from the archaic Nilo-Saharan *i-. As reflexes of this prefix are also attested in several branches of Eastern Sudanic and in Central Sudanic, they prove to be historically stable derivational morphemes which corroborate the assumed genetic coherence of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, as Dimmendaal argues. Moreover, the prefixes suggest that these languages have changed from an originally prefixing to a predominantly suffixing type. Another indicator of this conversion process is the archaic Nubian *m-prefix, which used to serve as a negation marker.
The comparative perspective on the Nubian verb extensions reveals language change motivated by various instances of grammaticalization, including semantic bleaching, the weakening and loss of functions, blending, the adoption of new grammatical functions, and even the emergence of new morphemes.
A manifestation of language change is the grammaticalization of the causative extension *-(i)r. The Old Nubian and Nobiin ‑(i)r-suffix tends to become redundant and therefore appears as a lexicalized element on some verbs. In Mattokki and Andaandi the gradual loss of the causative function of the ‑ir-extension has motivated the development of a reduplicated suffix. The resulting new ‑ir-ir-extension, realized as [iddi], is considered to be a compensation for the nearly defunct ‑ir. In the Kordofan Nubian languages the weakening of the causative function has resulted in ‑(i)r serving as a transitivizer on some Dilling verbs and on other verbs as an intransitivizer. On some Tagle verbs, in turn, ‑ir is even used in paradigmatic contrast to ‑er, thus differentiating singular from plural stems. Such morphologically marked singular stems only occur in Kordofan Nubian languages, whereas in the Nile Nubian languages they are unattested.
Another instance of grammaticalization is the assumed morphological blending of the two donative verbs, resulting in the emergence of the innovative verb ti. In the Kordofan Nubian languages ti has begun to replace the original donative verbs, particularly in applicative constructions. These distinct stages of grammaticalization indicate that the western Nubian languages have undergone more morphological and syntactic changes than the Nile Nubian languages which have retained the two original verbs.
Suggesting that the Old Nubian and Nobiin ‑a-suffix is a converb marker and therefore different from the Old Nubian clitic predicate marker -a, we have highlighted some syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages. They can express chains of successive events or even events prior or simultaneous to the event expressed by the main verb. Converbs are also employed as adverbial modifiers of main verbs. In these contexts, converbs are used in symmetric formations, i.e., the converb(s) and the main verb of a clause contribute equally to the expression of two or more events. In an asymmetric converb construction, by contrast, the converb and the adjacent main verb jointly express a single event. Such asymmetric formations are often associated with directed motion or transfer events or with the grammaticalization of the main verb as an aspect-marking or even valency-changing device. The latter is attested by the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages where the second verb is represented by a finite donative verb. This serves as a valence operator commonly licensing an additional argument with the role of a beneficiary.
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.
Verbal number marking in the Kordofan Nubian languages is far more complex than in the Nile Nubian languages. It is carried out by means of several formal strategies, including a variety of suffixes which may be combined with each other and with the alternation of the stem vowel and tone pattern. The morphological complexity of this system suggests that it is rather instable. In addition to expressing event number and participant number, Kordofan Nubian plural stems can even serve as valency-decreasing devices in agent-preserving and patient-preserving clauses which may convey facilitative and passive meanings.
In addition to reconstructing several Proto-Nubian verb extensions, the present paper also shows striking phonetic and semantic resemblances between several Nubian and Nyima (mostly Ama) verb extensions. The Nubian causative suffix *‑(i)gir, for instance, exhibits a velar stop. A velar [g] is also found in the Ama directional/causative extensions ‑ɪg and ‑ɛg. The Ama causative verbs “feed” and “suckle” addressed in §⁄5.2 suggest that the ‑ɪg- and ‑ɛg-extensions have come to replace the now defunct causative a-prefix, the latter being a cognate of the Proto-Nubian *u- ~ o-prefix.
The Kordofan Nubian reciprocal extension ‑in is comparable to the Ama dual ‑ɪn, which, according to Norton, originates from a reciprocal extension.
When we consider that the Proto-Nubian liquid *r is retained in most of its daughter languages, as attested by *ur “head,” *m-iir “barren,” and *tir “give to 2nd or 3rd person,” it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural suffix ‑er and the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object ‑ir- or ‑(i)r-ir-extension are cognates. They also appear to correspond to the Ama distributive extension ‑r and to the ‑r component of the complex Ama and Afitti extensions (‑Vd̪‑a)‑r and (-tə)-r, respectively. In addition to the shared ‑r-suffix, all of these extensions convey the semantic notion of plurality.
The Midob plural stem extension ‑íd- ~ -ʊd and the Ama distributive ‑ɪ́d̪ share several features, such as a VC-shaped structure, a high vowel, and high tone. Moreover, they are both semantically associated with plurality. Therefore, it seems likely that they have a common genetic origin.
As bound morphemes are less often subject to borrowing than free morphemes, these corresponding verb extensions point to a remote genetic relationship between Nubian and Nyima, rather than to contact-induced similarities.
However, in addition to the suggestive evidence of their old genetic links, there are also indicators of recent convergence between Nubian and Nyima, as attested by lexical borrowings (Tables 1 and 2). Since the phonetic similarities of the Ama, Mandal, and Afitti items to the Kordofan Nubian items is stronger than to the corresponding Nile Nubian items, they indicate that Kordofan Nubian is the donor language of these borrowings. It is assumed that Ama and Afitti adopted Kordofan Nubian lexical items due to contact with the ancestors of the present Kordofan Nubian language speakers, after they had migrated to and settled in the Nuba Mountains.
8. Abbreviations¶
- 1, 2, 3 – 1st, 2nd, 3rd person;
- acc – accusative;
- An – Andaandi;
- appl – applicative;
- caus – causative;
- cnv – converb;
- com – comitative;
- comm – command;
- cont – continuous;
- det – determiner;
- Dil – Dilling;
- dim – diminutive;
- distr – distributive;
- ditr – ditransitive;
- gen – genitive;
- excl – exclusive;
- imp – imperative;
- incl – inclusive;
- ind – indicative;
- inten – intentional;
- ins – instrumental;
- itr – intransitive;
- jus – jussive;
- Ka – Karko;
- Ma – Mattokki;
- lk – linker;
- loc – locative;
- Mi – Midob;
- neg – negation;
- neut – neutral;
- NN – Nile Nubian;
- No – Nobiin;
- oj – object;
- ON – Old Nubian;
- pass – passive;
- pcnv – purposive converb;
- pl – plural of nominal;
- plact – pluractional;
- plr – plural verb stem;
- PN – Proto-Nubian;
- PKN – Proto-Kordofan Nubian;
- ploj – plural object;
- pred – predicate;
- prf – perfect;
- prog – progressive;
- pfv – perfective;
- prs – present tense;
- pst – past;
- pt – preterite;
- ptc – participle;
- prog – progressive;
- proh – prohibitive;
- q – question;
- refl – reflexive;
- rcp – reciprocal;
- rpt – repetitive;
- sj – subject;
- sg – singular of nominal;
- sgt – singulative;
- sng – singular verb stem;
- stat – stative;
- sub – subessive;
- supe – superessive;
- Ta – Tagle;
- th – theme;
- top – topic;
- tr – transitive;
- ver – veridical;
- vet – vetitive.
9. Bibliography¶
Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed S.
bib⁄A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian. PhD Thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1988.
Abel, Hans.
bib⁄Eine Erzählung im Dialekt von Ermenne (Nubien). Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 29, no. 8. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913.
Almkvist, Herman N.
bib⁄Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78. Edited by K.V. Zetterstéen. Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1911.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
bib⁄Serial Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Ameka, Felix K. “Ewe Serial Verb Constructions in Their Grammatical Context.” In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 124–143.
Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Converbs in an African Perspective.” In Catching Language, edited by Felix A. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006: pp. 393–440.
Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal.
bib⁄“Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta.” In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 319–337.
Armbruster, Charles H.
bib⁄Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Armbruster, Charles H.
bib⁄Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne.
bib⁄“‘Nile-Nubian’ Reconsidered.” In Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics, edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne.
bib⁄“Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen.” Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6 (1984/85): pp. 7–134.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne.
bib⁄The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Nilo-Saharan.” In African Languages: An Introduction, edited by Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 43–75.
Bender, M. Lionel.
bib⁄The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1996.
Blench, Roger M. “Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic.” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 7 (2020): article⁄this issue.
Browne, Gerald M.
bib⁄Old Nubian Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
Browne, Gerald M.
bib⁄Old Nubian Grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa, 2002.
Browne, Gerald M.
bib⁄The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas. Vienna-Mödling: Verein der Förderer der Sudanforschung, 1994.
Comfort, Jade.
bib⁄“Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” In Nuba Mountain Language Studies, edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 381–400.
Comfort, Jade.
bib⁄“Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 1 (2014): pp. 145–163. doi: www⁄10.5070/D61110032.
Comfort, Jade & Angelika Jakobi
bib⁄“The Verb ‘to give’ as a Verbal Extension in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” In Afrikanische Sprachen im Fokus, edited by Raija Kramer, Holger Tröbs & Raimund Kastenholz. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2011: pp. 27–35.
Creissels, Denis.
bib⁄“Benefactive Applicative Periphrases: A Typological Approach.” In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, edited by Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2010: pp. 29–69.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄“Comparative African Linguistics.” In The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics, edited by H. Ekkehard Wolff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: pp. 139–165.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄“Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk Diaspora.” Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 18 (2007): pp. 37–67.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄“Nilo-Saharan.” In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, edited by Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: pp. 591–607.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “On Stable and Unstable Features in Nilo-Saharan.” In Nilo-Saharan Issues and Perspectives, edited by Helga Schröder & Prisca Jerono. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 9–23.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄“Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories.” In Number – Constructions and Semantics: Case Studies from Africa, Amazonia, India and Oceania, edited by Anne Storch & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014: pp. 57–75.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J., Colleen Ahland, Angelika Jakobi & Constance Kutsch Lojenga.
bib⁄“Linguistic Features and Typologies in Languages Commonly Referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’.” In The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics, edited by H. Ekkehard Wolff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019: pp. 326–381.
Ehret, Christopher.
bib⁄A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2001.
Gerven Oei, Vincent W.J. van.
bib⁄“A Note on the Old Nubian Morpheme ‑ⲁ in Nominal and Verbal Predicates.” In Nubian Voices II: New Texts and Studies on Christian Nubian Culture, edited by Adam Łajtar, Grzegorz Ochała, and Jacques van der Vliet. Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation, 2015: pp. 313–334.
Gerven Oei, Vincent W.J. van. A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
bib⁄Studies in African Linguistic Classification. New Haven: Compass, 1955.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
bib⁄The Languages of Africa. 3rd edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970.
Grüning, Manfred.
bib⁄A Sketch of the Midob Verbal Morphology. MA Thesis, Redcliffe College, 2014.
Hashim, Mohamed El-Hadi Hassan.
bib⁄Nobiiguun Kummaanchii – Shoo Urragi. Nobiin Stories, Vol. 1. Edited and translated by Roland Werner. Berlin: Nubian Press, 2005.
Haspelmath, Martin.
bib⁄“The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology.” Studies in Language 14, no. 1 (1990): pp. 25–72. doi: www⁄10.1075/sl.14.1.03has.
Haspelmath, Martin.
bib⁄“Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. www⁄http://wals.info/chapter/105.
Hintze, Fritz.
bib⁄“Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II.” Berliner Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 20, no. 3 (1971): pp. 287–293.
Hopper, Paul J.
bib⁄“Where Do Words Come From?” In Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday, edited by William Croft, Keith M. Denning & Suzanne Kemmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990: pp. 151–160.
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson.
bib⁄“Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56, no. 2 (1980): pp. 251–299. doi: www⁄10.2307/413757.
Jakobi, Angelika.
bib⁄“The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” In Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture, edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228.
Jakobi, Angelika.
bib⁄“Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 70, no. 1 (2017): pp. 117–142. doi: www⁄10.1515/stuf-2017-0007.
Jakobi, Angelika & Joachim Crass.
bib⁄Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2004.
Jakobi, Angelika & El-Shafie El-Guzuuli.
bib⁄“Perception Verbs and Their Semantics in Dongolawi (Nile Nubian).” In Perception and Cognition in Language and Culture, edited by Anne Storch & Alexandra Aikhenvald. Leiden: Brill, 2013: pp. 193–215.
Jakobi, Angelika & Ali Ibrahim.
bib⁄“Labile Verbs in Tagle (Kordofan Nubian).” In Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights, edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 99–127.
Jakobi, Angelika, Ali Ibrahim & Gumma Ibrahim Gulfan. “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” Faits de Langues/Journal of Language Diversity 51, no. 1 (2020): pp. 99–116.
Kauczor, P. Daniel.
bib⁄Die bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Gebel Deleṅ). Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920.
Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer. “Passive in the World’s Languages.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, edited by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007: pp. 325–361.
Khalil, Mohamed K. “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin (Nile Nubian).”⦚bib:d49f8a89-7fff-4de7-bab6-b8ce57cb6db6not found Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 2 (2015): pp. 59–71.
Lepsius, C. Richard.
bib⁄Nubische Grammatik. Mit einer Einleitung über die Völker und Sprachen Afrikas. Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1880.
Massenbach, Gertrud von.
bib⁄“Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes mit einer grammatischen Einleitung.” Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 36 (1933): pp. 99–227.
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
bib⁄Stativity and the Progressive. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984.
Norton, Russell. “Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 7 (2020): article⁄this issue.
Norton, Russell.
bib⁄“Number in Ama Verbs.” Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages 10 (2012): pp. 75–93.
Norton, Russell.
bib⁄“The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.” In Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions, edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122.
Noonan, Michael.
bib⁄“Genetic Classification and Language Contact.” In Handbook of Language Contact, edited by Raymond Hickey. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: pp. 48–65.
Pointner, Lena.
bib⁄“Verbal Number in Tabaq.” In Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights, edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 77–97.
Rapold, Christian J.
bib⁄“Defining Converbs Ten Years On – A Hitchhikers’ Guide.” In Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues, edited by Sascha Völlmin, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold & Silvia Zaugg-Coretti. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2012: pp. 7–30.
Reinisch, Leo.
bib⁄Die Nuba-Sprache. 2 vols. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1879.
Reinisch, Leo.
bib⁄Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba. Vienna: Hölder, 1911.
Rilly, Claude.
bib⁄Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Rilly, Claude.
bib⁄“The Linguistic Position of Meroitic: New Perspectives for Understanding the Texts.” Sudan & Nubia 12 (2008): pp. 2–12.
Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi.
bib⁄“Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.” Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269.
Slobin, Dan I.
bib⁄“What Makes Manner of Motion Verbs Salient? Explorations in Linguistic Typology, Discourse and Cognition.” In Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, edited by Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: pp. 59–81.
Smagina, Eugenia B.
bib⁄The Old Nubian Language. Translated by José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente. Dotawo Monograph 3. Earth: punctum books, 2017.
Starostin, George.
bib⁄“Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I: On the Genetic Unity of Nubian–Nara–Tama.” Journal of Language Relationship 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113.
Stevenson, Roland C.
bib⁄“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” Afrika und Übersee 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
Stevenson, Roland C.
bib⁄“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” Afrika und Übersee 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi.
bib⁄“The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 32 (1992): pp. 5–64.
Thelwall, Robin.
bib⁄“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.” In Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975, edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286.
Thelwall, Robin.
bib⁄“Meidob Nubian: Phonology, Grammatical Notes and Basic Vocabulary.” In Nilo-Saharan Language Studies, edited by M. Lionel Bender. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1983: pp. 97–113.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan.
bib⁄Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1966.
Veselinova, Ljuba N.
bib⁄“Verbal Number and Suppletion.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. www⁄http://wals.info/chapter/80.
Voogt, Alex de.
bib⁄“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” Studies in Language 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. doi: www⁄10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev.
Werner, Roland.
bib⁄Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Phonologie, Tonologie und Morphologie. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987.
Werner, Roland. “Ideophones in Nobiin,” unpublished ms presented as hand-out at the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium at Khartoum, 2004.
Werner, Roland.
bib⁄Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
Zyhlarz, Ernst.
bib⁄“Die Lautverschiebungen des Nubischen.” Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 35 (1949/50): pp. 1–20, 128–146, 280–313.
article⁄Restoring “Nile-Nubian”: How to Balance Lexicostatistics and Etymology in Historical Research on Nubian Languages
abstract⁄The paper offers a critical analysis of the proposal to dismantle the genetic unity of the so-called Nile-Nubian languages by positioning one of its former constituents, the Nobiin language, as the earliest offshoot from the Common Nubian stem. Combining straightforward lexicostatistical methodology with more scrupulous etymological analysis of the material, I argue that the evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Nobiin is the earliest offshoot may and, in fact, should rather be interpreted as evidence for a strong lexical substrate in Nobiin, accounting for its accelerated rate of change in comparison to the closely related Kenuzi–Dongolawi (Mattokki–Andaandi) cluster.
keywords⁄comparative linguistics, Nilo-Saharan, glottochronology, lexicostatistics, Nubian, West Nilotic
1. 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:
- 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, 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. 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).
|
Midob |
Birgid |
Kadaru |
Debri |
Dilling |
K/D |
K/D |
54% |
48% |
58% |
57% |
58% |
|
Nobiin |
40% |
37% |
43% |
41% |
43% |
70% |
Table 1. Part of the lexicostatistical matrix for Nubian
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.” 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, specialists in the field often remain undecided, and it is concluded in the most recent handbook on African linguistics that “the internal classification of Nubian remains unclear.” 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.
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.
|
Nobiin |
Midob |
K/D |
70% |
54% |
Nobiin |
|
40% |
Table 2a. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob (Bechhaus-Gerst)
|
Nobiin |
Midob |
K/D |
66% |
57% |
Nobiin |
|
51% |
Table 2b. Lexicostatistical relations between Nile-Nubian and Midob (Starostin)
The significant differences in figures between two instances of lexicostatistical calculations are explained by a number of factors (slightly divergent Swadesh-type lists; different etymologizations of several items on the list; exclusion of transparent recent loans from Arabic in Starostinʼs model). Nevertheless, the obvious problem does not go away in the second model: Midob clearly shares a significantly larger number of cognates with K/D than with Nobiin — a fact that directly contradicts the K/D–Nobiin proximity on the Nubian phylogenetic tree. The situation remains the same if we substitute Midob with any other non-Nile-Nubian language, such as Birgid or any of the multiple Hill Nubian idioms.
The important thing is that there are actually two possible reasons for this discrepancy in the lexicostatistical matrix. One, endorsed by Bechhaus-Gerst, is that the K/D–Nobiin number is incorrectly increased by the addition of a large number of items that have not been inherited from a common ancestor, but actually borrowed from Nobiin into K/D. An alternate scenario, however, is that the active recipient was Nobiin, except that the donor was not K/D — rather, a certain percentage of Nobiin basic lexicon could have been borrowed from a third, possibly unidentified source, over a relatively short period of time, which resulted in lowering the percentage of Nobiin matches with all other Nubian languages.
Thus, for instance, if we assume (or, better still, somehow manage to prove) that Nobiin borrowed 6% of the Swadesh wordlist (i.e., 6 words on the 100-item list) from this third source, exclusion of these words from lexicostatistical calculation would generally normalize the matrix, increasing the overall percentage for the K/D–Nobiin and Nobiin–Midob pairs, but not for the K/D–Midob pair.
The tricky part in investigating this situation is determining the status of those Nobiin words on the Swadesh list that it does not share with K/D. If the phylogenetic structure of the entire Nubian group is such that Nobiin represents the very first branch to be split off from the main body of the tree, as in Bechhaus-Gerstʼs model (fig. 1), then we would expect a certain portion of the Swadesh wordlist in Nobiin to be represented by the following two groups of words:
- archaic Nobiin retentions that have been preserved in their original meaning in that subgroup only, replaced by innovations in the intermediate common ancestor of Midob, Birgid, K/D, and Hill Nubian;
- conversely, more recent Nobiin innovations that took place after the original separation of Nobiin; in this case, the Nobiin equivalent of the Swadesh meaning would also be opposed to the form reconstructible for the common ancestor of the remaining four branches, but would not reflect the original Proto-Nubian situation.
Fig. 1. The revised classification of Nubian according to Bechhaus-Gerst
Indeed, we have a large share of Nobiin basic words that set it apart from every other Nubian languages (see the more than 30 items in §⁄III 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. 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. 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.
2. 100-Item Swadesh List for Nubian: The Data¶
2.1. I. Nobiin/Kenuzi–Dongolawi Isoglosses¶
2.1.1. 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.).
- “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.
- “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.
- “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.
- “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 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)-. 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.”
- “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).
2.1.2. I.2. Exclusive Nile-Nubian Isoglosses¶
- “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, 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.
- “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.”
2.2. II. Nobiin / Non-K/D Isoglosses¶
2.2.1. II.1. Potential K/D innovations¶
- “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.”
2.2.2. 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.
2.3. III. Nobiin-exclusive Items¶
2.3.1. 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; butter”; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M ə̀ggə́r, B igir, Dl ogor, etc.).
- (?) “earth”: N gùr (= ON gul- ~ gud-). ◊ The same word is also found in D as guː “earth, ground, floor” and in K as guː “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root, whereas ON iskit- “earth; dust” > Nobiin ìskíːd corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary. It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to §⁄I.2 (or §⁄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. Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that ùː may well be a PN archaism retained in N.
2.3.2. 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 satisfaction”) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D kal < PN *kɔl has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl kol, M ə̀l- id. Regardless of etymologization, N kàb- is clearly innovative.
- “fat”: N sìlèː. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages.
- “fish”: N ángíssí. ◊ Replaces ON watto-; neither of the two words has any clear parallels in K/D or any other Nubian languages. A possible, though questionable, internal etymology is “living in water” (from aɲ- “to live” + *essi “water,” see notes on “water” below).
- “full”: N mídd-ìr (= ON medd- ~ midd- “to be full/ready”). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *merid- (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure.
- (?) “good”: N màs. ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent gèn (= ON gen-), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better”), is clearly cognate with D gɛn “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl ken, Debri kɛŋ “good,” etc., going back to PN *gen-. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to §⁄I.1.
- “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 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, 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, 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.).
2.3.3. III.3. Nobiin-exclusive Recent Borrowings¶
- “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.
2.4. 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:
- Altogether, §⁄III.2 contains twenty items that are not only lexicostatistically unique for Nobiin, but also do not appear to have any etymological cognates whatsoever in any other Nubian languages. This observation is certainly not conclusive, since it cannot be guaranteed that some of these parallels were missed in the process of analysis of existing dictionaries and wordlists, or that more extensive lexicographical research on such languages as Midob or Hill Nubian in the future will not turn out additional parallels. At present, however, it is an objective fact that the percentage of such words in the Nobiin basic lexicon significantly exceeds the corresponding percentages for any other Nubian language (even Midob, which, according to general consensus, is one of the most highly divergent branches of Nubian). Most of these words are attested already in ON, which is hardly surprising, since the majority of recent borrowings into Nobiin have been from Arabic and are quite transparent as to their origin (see §⁄III.3).
- Analysis of §⁄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 (§⁄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).
3. 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:
- 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 §⁄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 §⁄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.
This conclusion is in complete agreement with the tentative identification of a “pre-Nile- Nubian substrate” in Nobiin by Claude Rilly, who, based on a general distributional analysis of Nubian lexicon, claims to identify no fewer than fifty-one Nobiin lexical items derived from that substrate, most of them belonging to the sphere of basic lexicon. It remains to be ascertained if all of Rillyʼs fifty-one items are truly unique in Nobiin (as I have already mentioned above, some of these Nobiin isolates might eventually turn out to be retentions from Proto-Nubian if future data on Hill Nubian and Midob happens to contain etymological parallels), but the fact that Rilly and the author of this paper arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other by means of somewhat different methods looks reassuring.
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. 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 method)
If we take the glottochronological figures at face value, they imply the original separation of Proto-Nile-Nubian around three to three and a half thousand years ago, and then a further split between the ancestors of modern Nobiin and K/D around two to two and a half thousand years ago. Interestingly enough, these events are chronologically correlatable with the two main events in the history of Nile-Nubian languages according to Bechhaus-Gerst, but not quite in the way that she envisions it: her “early separation of Nobiin” becomes the early separation of Nobiin and K/D, and her “later separation of K/D” becomes “final split between Nobiin and K/D.” The interaction between Nobiin and the mysterious “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” must have therefore taken place some time in the 1st millennium CE (after the split with K/D but prior to the appearance of the first written texts in Old Nubian). Nevertheless, at this point I would like to refrain from making any definitive conclusions on probable dates and migration routes, given the possibility of alternate glottochronological models.
The other issue — linguistic identification of the “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” — is even more interesting, since its importance goes far beyond Nubian history, and its successful resolution may have direct implications for the reconstruction of the linguistic history of Africa in general. Unfortunately, at this moment one can only speculate about what that substrate might have been, or even about whether it is reasonable to speak about a single substrate or a variety of idioms that may have influenced the early independent development of Nobiin.
Thus, Rilly, having analyzed lexical (sound + meaning) similarities between his fifty-one “pre-Nile-Nubian substrate” elements and other languages spoken in the region today or in antiquity, reached the conclusion that the substrate in question may have contained two layers: one related to ancient Meroitic, and still another one coming from the same Northern branch of Eastern Sudanic languages to which Nubian itself is claimed to belong. 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,” unconvincing due to multiple phonetic and semantic issues at the same time.
In Языки Африки, an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding upon an earlier observation by Robin Thelwall, who, while conducting his own lexicostatistical comparison of Nubian languages with other potential branches of East Sudanic, had first noticed some specific correlations between Nobiin and Dinka (West Nilotic). Going through Nobiin data in §⁄III.2 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- and Kalenjin *ŋoːk, 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).
4. Abbreviations¶
- B — Birgid;
- D — Dongolawi;
- Dl — Dilling;
- K — Kenuzi;
- K/D — Kenuzi–Dongolawi;
- M — Midob;
- N — Nobiin;
- ON — Old Nubian;
- PN — Proto-Nubian.
5. Bibliography¶
Armbruster, Charles H.
bib⁄Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne.
bib⁄“‘Nile-Nubianʼ Reconsidered.” In Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics, edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. “Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen.”⦚bib:49ab42ae-e792-4474-855c-0b2985eca9fnot found Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6 (1985): pp. 7–134.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer diachronen Soziolinguistik. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1996.
Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne.
bib⁄The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Bell, Herman.
bib⁄“Documentary Evidence on the Haraza Nubian Language.” Sudan Notes and Records 56 (1975): pp. 1–35.
Browne, Gerald M.
bib⁄Old Nubian Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
bib⁄The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966.
Güldemann, Tom.
bib⁄“Historical Linguistics and Genealogical Language Classification in Africa.” In The Languages and Linguistics of Africa, edited by Tom Güldemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2018: pp. 58–444.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva.
bib⁄“Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages.” In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: pp. 393–411.
Hofmann, Inge.
bib⁄Material für eine meroitische Grammatik. Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 16. Vienna: Afro-Pub, 1981.
Hofmann, Inge.
bib⁄Nubisches Wörterverzeichnis: Nubisch-deutsches und deutsch-nubisches Wörterverzeichnis nach dem Kenzi-Material des Samuêl Alî Hisên (1863–1927). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1986.
Jakobi, Angelika.
bib⁄“The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” In Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture, edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228.
Kassian, Alexei.
bib⁄“Towards a Formal Genealogical Classification of the Lezgian Languages (North Caucasus): Testing Various Phylogenetic Methods on Lexical Data.” PLoS ONE 10, no. 2 (2015). doi: www⁄10.1371/journal.pone.0116950.
Kauczor, P. Daniel.
bib⁄Die Bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Gebel Deleṅ). Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920.
Khalil, Mokhtar M.
bib⁄Wörterbuch der nubischen Sprache (Fadidja/Maḥas Dialekt). Warsaw: Piotr O. Scholtz, 1996.
Krell, Amy.
bib⁄Rapid Appraisal Sociolinguistic Survey among Ama, Karko, and Wali Language Groups (Southern Kordofan, Sudan). SIL International, 2012.
Lepsius, C. Richard.
bib⁄Nubische Grammatik. Mit einer Einleitung über die Völker und Sprachen Afrikas. Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1880.
Rilly, Claude.
bib⁄“Language and Ethnicity in Ancient Sudan.” In The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies, edited by Julie Renée Anderson and Derek A. Welsby. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 2014: pp. 1169–1188.
Rilly, Claude.
bib⁄Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Rottland, Franz.
bib⁄Die Südnilotischen Sprachen: Beschreibung, Vergleichung und Rekonstruktion. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1982.
Souag, Mostafa Lameen.
bib⁄Grammatical Contact in the Sahara: Arabic, Berber, and Songhay in Tabelbala and Siwa. PhD Thesis, SOAS, University of London, 2010.
Starostin, George.
bib⁄Языки Африки. Опыт построения лексикостатистической классификации. Том II: Восточносуданские языки [Languages of Africa: An Attempt at a Lexicostatistical Classification, Vol. II: East Sudanic Languages]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʼtury, 2014.
Thelwall, Robin.
bib⁄“A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.” In Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigall 1874–1974, edited by Herbert Ganslmayr and Hermann Jungraithmayr. Bremen: Übersee-Museum, 1977: pp. 197–210.
Thelwall, Robin.
bib⁄“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.” In Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975, edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286.
Vasilyev, Mikhail & George Starostin.
bib⁄“Лексикостатистическая классификация нубийских языков: к вопросу о нильско-нубийской языковой общности” [“Lexicostatistical Classification of the Nubian languages and the Issue of the Nile-Nubian Genetic Unity”]. Journal of Language Relationship 12 (2014): 51–72.
Voßen, Rainer.
bib⁄The Eastern Nilotes: Linguistic and Historical Reconstructions. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982.
Werner, Roland.
bib⁄Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Phonologie, Tonologie und Morphologie. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987.
Werner, Roland.
bib⁄Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nubian). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
article⁄Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic
abstract⁄East Sudanic is the largest and most complex branch of Nilo-Saharan. First mooted by Greenberg in 1950, who included seven branches, it was expanded in his 1963 publication to include Ama (Nyimang) and Temein and also Kuliak, not now considered part of East Sudanic. However, demonstrating the coherence of East Sudanic and justifying an internal structure for it have remained problematic. The only significant monograph on this topic is Bender’s The East Sudanic Languages, which uses largely lexical evidence. Bender proposed a subdivision into Ek and En languages, based on pronouns. Most subsequent scholars have accepted his Ek cluster, consisting of Nubian, Nara, Ama, and Taman, but the En cluster (Surmic, E. Jebel, Temein, Daju, Nilotic) is harder to substantiate. Rilly has put forward strong arguments for the inclusion of the extinct Meroitic language as coordinate with Nubian. In the light of these difficulties, the paper explores the potential for morphology to provide evidence for the coherence of East Sudanic. The paper reviews its characteristic tripartite number-marking system, consisting of singulative, plurative, and an unmarked middle term. These are associated with specific segments, the singulative in t- and plurative in k- as well as a small set of other segments, characterized by complex allomorphy. These are well preserved in some branches, fragmentary in others, and seem to have vanished completely in the Ama group, leaving only traces now fossilized in Dinik stems. The paper concludes that East Sudanic does have a common morphological system, despite its internal lexical diversity. However, this data does not provide any evidence for the unity of the En languages, and it is therefore suggested that East Sudanic be analyzed as consisting of a core of four demonstrably related languages, and five parallel branches which have no internal hierarchy.
keywords⁄East Sudanic, Nilo-Saharan, comparative linguistics
1. Introduction¶
The East (formerly “Eastern”) Sudanic languages, spread between Chad and Northern Tanzania, constitute a branch of Nilo-Saharan with a proposed membership of nine families, including Nilotic, the largest and most complex group. We owe the original concept of East Sudanic to Greenberg who attributed seven branches to it, shown in Table 1, together with their modern names. Families unknown to Greenberg are added in the “Current” column.
Greenberg (1950) |
Current |
Nubian |
Nubian + Meroitic |
Beir-Didinga |
Surmic |
Barea |
Nara |
Tabi |
Eastern Jebel |
Merarit |
Taman |
Dagu |
Daju |
Southern |
Nilotic |
|
Nyima |
|
Temein |
Table 1. Greenberg’s original concept of East Sudanic
Greenberg was not aware of Nyimang and Temein, and these were added later in Greenberg together with Kuliak, now considered by Bender to be a separate branch of Nilo-Saharan. Greenberg claimed East Sudanic was part of “Chari-Nile,” a group which included Central Sudanic, Kunama, and Bertha. Chari-Nile is also now not thought to be valid. Somewhat confusingly, Tucker had earlier published a book entitled The Eastern Sudanic Languages but it is largely about Central Sudanic, Ubangian, and Nilotic languages. Prior to Greenberg, many individual languages or small groups had been described in Tucker & Bryan, but they were not combined into a larger unit. Greenberg makes a large number of proposals for grammatical and lexical isomorphs, which more recent scholars have not followed up in detail.
East Sudanic languages are by far the most well-known branch of Nilo-Saharan, with Nilotic and Nubian the main focal points. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the cultural prominence of the speakers and their relative accessibility. However, rather like Bantu, Nilotic represents a recent expansion and is only a fragment of the internal diversity of Eastern Sudanic. Nubian has attracted researchers because of its old manuscript attestations and epigraphic tradition. It has long been suspected that the extinct Meroitic language is part of East Sudanic, but the small number of unambiguously identified lexemes made this argument difficult to sustain. However, with the work of Rilly and Rilly & De Voogt this argument can be considered secure. Rilly places Meroitic as coordinate with proto-Nubian as part of his “Northern East Sudanic” family. Map 1 shows their approximate distribution in recent times.
Map 1. The East Sudanic languages
The nine branches remain the accepted listing with some relatively minor reassignments. There have been few attempts to synthesise data on East Sudanic, the unpublished MSc thesis of Ross, who was a student of Bender, and Bender’s own studies and monograph. The study by Starostin of Nubian–Nara–Tama is part of a project to re-evaluate East Sudanic as a whole from the point of view of lexicostatistics. Bender gives basic phonologies representative of each branch, as well as an argument for the coherence of East Sudanic based principally on lexical evidence. This latter was locally printed in Carbondale and is best described as problematic to read for those who are not strongly motivated to penetrate its forest of acronyms and compressed citations. It has therefore had a very limited impact on Nilo-Saharan studies. However, it is full of interesting suggestions for isoglosses and presents an elaborate table of sound correspondences, so it undoubtedly merits close study. Unlike Bender’s Omotic compendium, it does not include original lexical forms systematically, and hence each entry needs to be rechecked against original and more current source data. It is safe to say Bender’s publications did not have a resounding impact on the scholarly community.
Despite its previous acceptance, the published arguments for the coherence of East Sudanic remain weak. No unambiguous innovations, lexical or phonological, mark all branches as members. Some researchers have expressed scepticism about its unity. However, studies of East Sudanic by Dimmendaal broadly accept the classification of Bender, although using very different criteria for accepting its coherence. However, Güldemann remains sceptical, arguing that internal typological differences may be evidence for convergence rather than genetic affiliation. The www⁄Glottolog takes a far more extreme position, treating all branches as distinct families.
2. Lexical evidence¶
2.1. East Sudanic as a Unity¶
Claims for the reality of East Sudanic are largely based on lexical evidence. Bender proposes the most significant set of proposals in this area, but Greenberg’s original argument also includes some suggestions. Assuming the coherence of East Sudanic, the proposals for an internal structure are tenuous. Bender has argued in various places that East Sudanic has two main subdivisions, which he notates Ek and En, on the basis of the first person independent pronoun (Table 2).
Ek |
Branch |
En |
Branch |
E1 |
Nubian |
E2 |
Surmic |
E3 |
Nara |
E4 |
Eastern Jebel |
E5 |
Nyima |
E6 |
Temein(?) |
E7 |
Taman |
E8 |
Daju |
|
|
E9 |
Nilotic |
Table 2. Bender’s subclassification of East Sudanic
The first person singular subject pronoun in East Sudanic, first set out by Greenberg and later supplemented by Bender, forms a distinctive set (Table 3):
Branch |
Language(s) |
Form |
Nubian |
Nobiin |
ay |
Nara |
Nara |
ag |
Nyima |
Ama |
a(i) |
Taman |
All |
wa, wo |
Surmic |
Didinga |
a |
Surmic |
Kwegu |
aan |
Eastern Jebel |
Gaahmg |
aan |
Temein |
Ronge |
nan |
Daju |
Nyala |
aaga |
West Nilotic |
Dinka |
an |
East Nilotic |
Masai, Turkana, Nandi, Teso |
nanu |
South Nilotic |
Pokot |
anii |
Table 3. First person singular subject pronoun in East Sudani
Even this dataset does not entirely support Bender’s division, since Daju appears to fall in the Ek group. The forms with a nasal largely correspond to Bender’s En, while those without nasals correspond to Ek. However, on this evidence, the presence of a velar cannot be said to characterise all Ek languages.
2.2. The Ek Languages¶
Bender, Ehret, Rilly, and Starostin agree that at least Nubian, Nara, Tama, and perhaps Nyimang form a subgroup (Ehret’s “Astaboran”). The lexical tables below provide a summary version of the compilations of Rilly sometimes with updated citations. Table 4 shows the Ek forms for “drink” which seem to refer to a protoform *dii.
Subgroup |
Language |
Attestation |
Nara |
|
líí |
Nubian |
Dilling |
di |
Nubian |
Midob |
tìì |
Nyima |
Ama |
lì |
Taman |
Proto-Taman |
*li(y)- |
Table 4. Ek lexical isogloss, “drink,” *dii
Table 5 shows a common form for “house,” assuming Nubian preserves a velar lost in the other languages. The vowel is not entirely clear, but I provisionally reconstruct a mid central vowel.
Subgroup |
Language |
Attestation |
Nubian |
Midob |
kàr |
Nubian |
Nyala |
aare |
Nara |
|
wǒl |
Nyima |
Ama |
wel |
Taman |
Tama |
wal |
Table 5. Ek lexical isogloss, “house,” *kəl
Table 6 shows a lexical isogloss for “mouth,” *aŋəl. However, the Eastern Jebel language Gaamhg also appears to be either cognate or else a loan, so this constitutes slightly imperfect evidence.
Subgroup |
Language |
Attestation |
Nubian |
Andaandi |
agil |
Nara |
|
aùlò |
Nyima |
Ama |
ŋàl |
Taman |
Abu Sharib |
awl |
E Jebel |
Gaahmg |
ag |
Table 6. Ek lexical isogloss, “mouth,” *aŋəl
Table 7 presents the evidence for the lexical isogloss, “two,” perhaps *wari(m) if the -m in Nyima is to be included.
Subgroup |
Language |
Attestation |
Nubian |
Haraza |
auri-yah |
Nubian |
Old Nubian |
uwo |
Nubian |
Karko |
ārè |
Nara |
|
ari-ga |
Nyima |
Proto-Nyima |
*arm- |
Taman |
Proto-Taman |
*wari |
Table 7. Ek lexical isogloss, “two,” *wari(m)
2.3. The En Languages¶
Though the En languages share overlapping isoglosses, they do not share enough common material to be conclusively considered a genetic unity. Bender recognizes that the arguments for membership of Temein in his En group are sketchy. Table 8 presents one of Bender’s better common glosses.
Subgroup |
Language |
Attestation |
Surmic |
Murle |
***ɓɔ****lɔ́ɔ́k* |
E Jebel |
Aka |
***bəəb****a* |
Temein |
Temein |
***pɔ̀p****áʈɪ̀ʈ* |
Daju |
Liguri |
ku****ɓu****du |
E Nilotic |
Lopit |
a.bob.io |
E Nilotic |
Maa |
a.bob.oki |
Table 8. En lexical isogloss, “bark n.,” *-bob-
3. Morphological Evidence¶
In the light of these problems with the lexicon, it may be that a better case for East Sudanic can be made on the basis of morphology. Bryan had already noted the existence of a “t-k substratum” in a variety of languages across East-Central Africa. These elements are affixes on nominals associated with number marking. Her argument is somewhat confused, as this feature is unlikely to be a substrate feature of some lost phylum. Most plausibly, it is a feature of Nilo-Saharan which has been borrowed into Afroasiatic (since it is definitely not a widespread feature of Afroasiatic). Bryan identifies the following morphological elements:
- Singulative -t
- Plural -k
- Plural -N
The majority of languages she uses to exemplify this principle would now be classified as East Sudanic. Greenberg calls moveable k- a “stage III article” while Ehret calls it both an “adjective suffix” and a “noun particularizing prefix.” Bender, who considers it a “noun-class formative remnant,” notes that it is widespread but not universal in Nilo-Saharan. Also included are some Cushitic languages, but the extension of the “substratum” is somewhat strained. The T-affix in Afroasiatic is a widespread marker of feminine gender and a deep level connection with Nilo-Saharan through semantic shift is not impossible. Bender also discusses N-affixes in Nilo-Saharan, reprising observations by Tucker & Bryan. Storch also takes up the issue of N/K and T/K alternations in relation to Nilotic noun morphology.
These affixes are certainly present in East Sudanic languages along with others. Many languages also permit gemination or consonant doubling. The origins of gemination in suffixes remains in doubt, but may arise from resuffixing, just as long consonants in Niger-Congo can arise from reprefixing in noun class languages. Moreover, nominals in East Sudanic can allow “affix-stacking,” the addition in sequence of one or more affixes as part of historical stratification.
The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of gemination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.
4. Individual Branches¶
4.1. Nubian and Meroitic¶
Nubian demonstrates strong evidence for tripartite number marking in nouns. Jakobi & Hamdan describe Karko, which has a restricted system of suffixed singulatives, where -Vt and -ɖ are allomorphs (Table 9).
Gloss |
sg |
pl |
sorghum |
wèê-t |
wèè |
hair |
ʈēɽ-ét |
tèèl |
bulrush millet |
ɛ̀nɖ-ɛ́t |
ɛ̀nɖ |
tooth |
jíl-ɖ |
jīīl |
breast |
ə̄l-ɖ |
ɔ̄ɔ̄l |
Table 9. Karko singulatives
However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (Table 10). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr, with a distinct second set, Vɲ ~ Vŋ. The suffix -Vnd may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes.
Gloss |
sg |
pl |
body |
íìl |
īl-ɖ |
heart |
áàl |
āl-ɖ |
star |
ōnɖ |
ōnɖ-ôl |
milk |
éèj |
ēj-ēl |
chicken |
kòk |
kōk-ôr |
cat |
bùt |
bùt-ùr |
|
|
|
blood |
ōg |
ōg-ōnd |
fire |
úk |
ūk-ūnd |
|
|
|
river |
ìr |
īr-īɲ |
rope |
ə̀r |
ə̄r-ə̄ɲ |
shield |
kə̀r |
kə̀r-ə̀ŋ |
ostrich |
ʈùlɖ |
ʈùlɖ-ùŋ |
Table 10. Karko plural marking
Proto-Nubian may have had a fully functional tripartite system, which has now eroded leaving both singulatives and plurals, but not simultaneously. Once allomorphy is taken into account, the available affixes are very restricted. A language such as Midob has a still more reduced system, with only the alveo-dental t ~ di (Table 11).
Gloss |
sg |
pl |
thing |
sáar |
sàartì |
house |
ə̀d |
ə̀ttì |
child |
úccí |
ùccédí |
woman |
íddí |
ìddédí |
cow |
tə̀ə |
tə̀yítì |
Table 11. Midob nominal plurals
The restricted corpus for Meroitic and the absence of reliable grammatical information makes it problematic to know the nature of its affix system. However, a couple of glosses which are considered reliable almost certainly show singulatives comparable to other Nubian languages:
Gloss |
Transliteration |
Approx. pronunciation |
sister |
kdise, kdite |
/kaɖiɕ, kaɖit/ |
life |
pwrite |
/bawarit/ |
Table 12. Meroitic glosses showing singulative marking
4.2. Nara¶
Nominal plurals in Nara are created through suffixing and sporadic gemination of the final consonant. The six plural classes are shown in Table 13. There are weak correlations with semantics and these are given only as indicative:
Suffix |
|
Gloss |
sg |
pl |
Semantics |
-ka |
-K |
fox |
kerfe |
kerefka |
animals |
|
|
animal |
oof |
oofka |
|
-ta |
-T |
heart |
asma |
asimta |
body parts |
|
|
meat |
nooti |
noota |
|
-a |
-V |
ear |
tus |
tusa |
animals and plants |
|
|
thorn |
keer |
keera |
|
-tta |
-T |
blood |
kito |
kitotta |
collectives(?) |
|
|
grass |
sum |
sumitta |
|
-CCa |
-I |
bride |
solobi |
solobba |
people, animals |
|
|
goat |
bele |
bella |
|
-ʤʤa |
-S |
gland |
foʤi |
foʤʤaa |
internal secretions |
|
|
milk course |
ngiʤi |
ngiʤʤaa |
|
Table 13. Nara number marking in nouns
The plurals in last three classes which involve consonant doubling and change the final vowel to -a may simply be allomorphs of an underlying -a suffix. These may derive from a single rule and thus not exemplify the characteristic East Sudanic suffixes.
4.3. Nyima¶
Nyima covers two related languages, Nyimang and Afitti, now usually known as Ama and Dinik respectively. Both languages have retained only traces of the complex noun morphology characteristic of other East Sudanic branches. Ama nouns have a single plural-marking suffix, -ŋi (or -gi after a liquid). Even this is dropped when number can be inferred from either a numeral or a quantifier. There are a small number of suppletives for persons:
Gloss |
sg |
pl |
person, pl people |
wodáŋ |
wàá |
child |
wodéŋ |
ɖúriŋ |
Table 14. Suppletive plural forms in Ama
Reduplication can be used to express collectives, e.g., ɖàmì “egg”; ɖàɖàmì “all the eggs.”
Otherwise the loss of most plural marking is very marked in comparison with related branches. For Dinik, De Voogt notes number marking briefly, which he states is only applied consistently to animates. Dinik has three plural markers, -gòr, -ná, and -é. A comparison of the lexicon of Dinik yields some possible evidence for fossil affixes. Dinik in particular has a wide range of nominals with -Vk suffixes (Table 14).
Gloss |
Attestation |
river |
kwɔlək |
dura sorghum |
mənək |
scorpion |
ŋwunək |
grave |
tirik |
lightning |
arsək |
salt |
ɔrdik |
spear |
mətsək |
Table 15. The fossil affix -Vk in Dinik
Despite their lexical affinity to the Ek branch, Nyima languages have all but lost their indicative noun morphology. However, as Norton observes, the characteristic t/k alternations are well preserved in the verbal system in the distinction between factative and progressive. Table 16 exemplifies this alternation.
Gloss |
Factative |
Progressive |
build |
t̪-ùɡ-è |
k-ūɡ |
dig |
t̪-īw-ò |
k-íw |
light (fire) |
t̪-ūɕ-ē |
k-úɕ-ín |
build |
tuɡɛ̀ |
kwò |
chop |
tàiɔ̀ |
kaì |
dig |
tìwò |
kìù |
Table 16. T/K marking on Ama verb stems
Norton has a lengthy argument about how the nominal alternation became attached to verbs, which he summarises as follows:
I therefore propose that this class of verbs attests the Nyima cognate of the wider Nilo-Saharan T/K alternation. This entails a chain of events in which the T/K alternation first moved from the noun (singular/plural) to the verb (singulactional/pluractional), and then shifted in meaning from verbal number to verbal aspect (factative/progressive) […]. Seen in this light, the significance of moving T/K morphology onto verbs in the Nyima branch is that it renewed an existing system of irregular singulactional/pluractional alternations.
This shift from the nominal to the verbal system suggests that Nyima need no longer be treated as the missing piece in the puzzle of East Sudanic morphology.
4.4. Taman¶
Descriptions of the morphology of Taman languages are very limited. Kellermann provides a summary of number marking in nouns, based on the manuscript material of Stevenson (Table 17):
Affix |
sg |
Affix |
pl |
Gloss |
-t |
mèya-t |
-k |
mèya-k |
blacksmith |
-t |
wɪ̀gɪ-t |
-ɛ |
wɪ̀gɪ-ɛ |
bird |
-V |
áunyò |
-(V)k |
áunyò-k |
elbow |
-∅ |
gaan |
-(V)k |
gaan-ɪk |
tree |
-∅ |
wal |
-V |
wal-u |
house |
-k |
taɽ-ak |
-V |
taɽ-o |
chief |
-X |
iɲ-o |
-(V)ɲ |
iɲ-iɲ |
pot |
-∅ |
áwór |
-(V)ŋ |
áwór-oŋ |
knee |
Table 17. Tama nominal number-marking
As with other East Sudanic languages, once allomorphy is taken into account, number-marking affixes are quite reduced. Tama has -t, -k, -(V)N, and an underspecified vowel. No examples of synchronic tripartite number marking are given, but the use of -t in the singulative and the “moveable” -k all point to this as formerly operative. The underspecified V in -VC suffixes suggests compounding, as in other East Sudanic languages.
4.5. Surmic¶
Surmic displays abundant evidence for three-term number marking. Table 18 shows its operation in Laarim:
Gloss |
sg |
Generic |
pl |
gazelle |
boronit |
boron- |
boronua |
nail |
gurmaloʧ |
gurmal- |
gurmaleeta |
Table 18. Tripartite number marking in Laarim
Yigezu & Dimmendaal focus on Baale and Table 19 shows its number marking system and identifiable affixes. The variability in Baale is extremely high with many minor differences, so the analysis is not always certain. For example, “stomach” might represent an original -NV affix, eroded by the subsequent addition of the -TV.
Gloss |
Affix |
sg |
Affix |
pl |
arm, hand |
-∅ |
ayí |
-NV |
ayinná |
moon |
-∅ |
ɲʊlʊ́ |
-KV |
ɲɔlɔgɛ́ |
man, person |
-∅ |
éé |
-TV |
eet̤á |
goat |
-∅ |
ɛ́ɛ́s |
-TV |
ɛ́ɛ́ta |
head |
-A |
ɔwá |
-TV |
ooti |
face, forehead |
-A |
ŋʊmmá |
-TV |
ŋuundí |
stomach |
-A |
kɛŋŋá |
-TV |
keendi |
ear |
-NV |
ɪtááni |
-NV |
ɪnná |
rope |
-S |
mɔssájí |
-N |
mɔɔssɛ́n |
Table 19. Baale number marking and affixes
From this evidence, Baale has singulars in -(N)A, -S, and -NV and plurals with -KV, -TV, and -N.
4.6. Eastern Jebel¶
To judge by the data in Bender, Aka has a richer system of number marking than Gaahmg. Extracting the affixes from the system of number-marking, the following (at least) occur (Table 20):
Gloss |
Affix |
sg |
Affix |
pl |
tongue |
-∅ |
kala |
-A, -T |
kala.ati |
knee |
-∅ |
kʊsu |
-N |
kʊsuu.ŋi |
belly |
-∅ |
ɛllɛ |
-T |
ɛllɛ.ti |
ear |
-∅ |
sigii |
-T |
sigii.de |
fish |
-∅ |
ʔʊʊgu |
-T |
ʔʊʊgu.ði |
dog |
-∅ |
kɛle |
-V |
kɛle.i |
bone |
-K |
gamoo.ka |
-N |
gamoo.ɲi |
egg |
-K |
ʔʊmuu.ke |
-T |
ʊʊmʊ.ti |
horn |
-K |
kɔsʊl.ge |
-V |
kɔsʊʊl.i |
cloud |
-V |
aabuga |
-T |
aabug.adi |
Table 20. Examples of Aka number marking on nouns
As with Gaamhg, nouns can have zero marking, singulatives a velar or underspecified vowel, with plural affixes -Ti, -Ni, or a single vowel. Some plural suffixes, such as -aTi, probably combine two affixes, a pattern found elsewhere in East Sudanic.
4.7. Temein¶
Temein consists of three languages, Temein, Keiga Jirru, and These. Surface forms for number marking in Temein are highly diverse and not easy to predict, even though the basic elements are relatively few. Temein languages operate a three-way system of number-marking with an unmarked form plus singulatives and pluratives, also known as “replacive.” However, the erosion of this system has meant that nouns where three terms occur synchronically are relatively rare. Table 21 shows some examples of these:
Language |
Gloss |
sg |
Unmarked |
pl |
Temein |
dura |
mórɪŋɪnʈɛʈ (one grain) |
mórɪŋɪs (head of grain) |
mórɪŋ (dura plant) |
Keiga Jirru |
meat |
bɪlanḑàk (one piece) |
ɪnɖàk |
kɪnɖaɖɪ̀k |
Keiga Jirru |
medicine |
móreḑàk |
|
komórò (roots) |
These |
fat (n.) |
nányɛ́ɖə̀k |
nányàʔ |
kɪnányàʔ |
Table 21. Tripartite number marking in the Temein cluster
Number marking in Temein displays typical Nilo-Saharan characteristics, although these are combined in ways that are difficult to predict for individual nouns. The most common elements are:
- “Moveable k-” (with an underspecified vowel), prefixed, suffixed or both, where prefixed kV- is a typical strategy for Arabic loanwords
- Addition of final –NI
- Addition of final –a[ʔ]
- Singulative marking with –Iʈ, -Is
- Vowel lengthening and unpredictable changes in vowel quality
- Changes in ATR quality of the vowel
- Suppletion is present although not always easy to identify due to vowel changes and shortening
4.7.1. Prefix k-¶
In the Temein cluster k- is strongly associated with plurals and can occur before, after, and at both ends of a word. The underspecified vowel often results in a copy of the stem vowel, though not in every case. The vowel can disappear when the stem begins with an approximant. Table 22 shows surface forms in Temein:
Gloss |
Unmarked |
pl |
belly |
óòm |
kómɪk |
big |
ḿbù |
kɪmbɪk |
hill, stone |
kúrɛʈ |
kukúrɛʈ |
shield |
wór |
kwòráʔ |
Table 22. Temein -Vk, kV- nominal affixes
This affix has an allomorph –Vk that can mark singulative as in These (Table 23):
Gloss |
sg |
Unmarked |
firewood |
márɛnyɪk |
márɛŋ |
ear |
ŋwánɪk |
kwɛɛŋ |
eye |
náánɪk |
kɛnyɪŋ |
fish |
kɛlɛɖak |
káála |
Table 23. These -Vk singulative affix
In the case of the singulative for “fish,” it appears that it has already been marked once as a singulative with –ʈ and the –Vk has been subsequently affixed.
4.7.2. Final –NI¶
Less common is –NI or -IN in final position. Temein examples are shown in Table 24:
Gloss |
Unmarked |
pl |
friend |
wórɪnyà |
kórɪnyànɪ̀ |
hanging frame |
sɛsɪlàŋ |
sɛsɪlàŋì |
moon |
kóù |
kikówɪn |
Table 24. Temein -IN, -NI plural affix
The following affixes can thus be attributed to Temein, -T, -K, -N, -S, -V. Temein shows no evidence for consonant gemination.
4.8. Daju¶
Daju languages also show evidence for the characteristic three-way number-marking contrast of Nilo-Saharan, albeit realised in a fragmentary way in many languages. Stevenson describes the three-way contrast in Shatt Tebeldia:
Many nouns have three forms, representing mass or collective / unit / units. […] The suffix is then replaced by another, or a further suffix is added, to denote the plural of the unit. […]
This is shown for two glosses in Table 25:
Gloss |
sg |
Unmarked |
pl (countable) |
egg |
gilis-ic |
gilis |
gilis-u |
worm |
ox-uic |
ox |
ox-uij-iny |
Shatt and Laggori at least have considerable diversity of surface affixes marking number, either singulative or plural with suffixes as well as *replacing word endings. Boyeldieu describes the number marking in Shatt Damman in some detail (Table 26).
Category |
sg |
pl |
sg/pl. alternation |
-V |
-u |
|
-x |
-ɲ |
|
-c |
-ɲ, -ic/-iɲ, -d(d)ic/-d(d)iɲ |
|
-ic |
-u |
|
-(ɨ)c |
-ta/-d(d)a |
pl only |
|
-iɲ |
|
|
-u |
|
|
-ta/-d(d)a |
|
|
-ti/-d(d)i |
|
|
-tiɲ |
|
|
-dɨk |
sg only |
-ic |
|
|
-tic/-d(d)ic |
|
|
-c |
|
|
-sɨnic/-zɨnɨc |
|
Table 26. Number-marking suffixes in Shatt Damman
Boyeldieu also lists a significant number of irregular forms. There are three classes of noun, those with alternation, and those with singulatives and those with plurals. It appears there are now no examples of three-way contrast. Despite the surface variety, allomorphy suggests there are five underlying affixes, -N, -T, -K, -y, and -V where V is a high back vowel. In addition, the -x suffix may an allophone of an underlying fricative, i.e., -S (s ~ z), which would give Daju a complete set of East Sudanic affixes. Some singulative suffixes, such as -zɨnɨc, illustrate multiple compounding. There are, however, no examples of gemination.
The alternating nominal suffixes of Dar Daju described by Aviles present a far simpler set. Every noun has one of four singular suffixes. Aviles calls these “classificatory” although they have no obvious semantic association. These alternate with four plural suffixes, although these all appear to be allomorphs of -ge (Table 27).
Class |
Gloss |
sg |
1 |
elder |
ɉam-ne |
2 |
liver |
cacaw-ce |
3 |
mouth |
uk-e |
4 |
car |
watiɾ-i |
Table 27. Singulative suffixes in Dar Daju
The singulative suffixes -NV, -ʧV, and -V (where V is a front vowel) can be attributed to Dar Daju.
4.9. Nilotic¶
4.9.1. West Nilotic¶
The principal overview of noun morphology in West Nilotic is presented by Storch. Western Nilotic also has an emergent classifier system, described in some detail in Storch but omitted here. Table 28 summarizes the affixes of West Nilotic:
Semantics |
Mayak |
Mabaan |
Jumjum |
Dinka |
Nuer |
general |
-(V)k |
-k(ʌ̃) |
-kV |
-k, -V |
|
general |
-(V)n |
-Cin̪ |
-ni |
-N, -V |
-ní, -V̪ |
round, mass, small |
|
-ǎn̪ |
|
|
|
body |
|
-kù |
|
|
-c |
space |
|
|
|
|
(*-N?) |
unspecified |
|
-λ |
|
|
-y |
unspecified |
-it̪ |
-t̪ǎn |
|
-t̪ |
-t̪ |
abstract |
-ḓín |
|
|
|
|
Semantics |
Anywa |
Päri |
Shilluk |
Lüwo |
Thuri |
general |
-k, -Ci, Cè |
-ki, -ke |
*-k |
-kʌ̀ |
-k |
general |
-Ci?, -Cè? |
-Neʔ |
-V(N) |
-V, -ɛ, -NVɛ́ |
-Ni, -in, -Nɛ́, -ɛ́n |
round, mass, small |
-i |
-e |
(.ˋ), (ʾ) |
-ɛ́ |
-ɛ́ |
body |
-Ci |
-ì |
|
-ì |
-ì |
space |
|
|
|
|
|
unspecified |
|
|
[.ˋ] |
|
|
unspecified |
-t, -Cè |
-rí, -te |
-Vdi |
-t̪ |
-d̪i |
abstract |
|
|
|
|
|
Semantics |
Belanda Bor |
S. Lwoo |
Labwor |
general |
|
-k(V), -ke |
-gV |
general |
|
-ni, -n(í)n, -ne |
-ni, -né |
round, mass, small |
|
-e |
-é, -i |
body |
|
-i |
-i |
space |
|
|
|
unspecified |
|
|
|
unspecified |
|
*-ti, -(t)àʔ |
-(C)áʔ |
abstract |
|
|
|
Table 28. Number marking affixes in West Nilotic
If we presume the same processes of allomorphy as elsewhere in East Sudanic, the number marking affixes of Proto-West Nilotic can be summarized more briefly:
- Underlying affixes: -KV, -TV, -NV, -V
- Compound affixes: -TVN, -VTV, -VNV
4.9.2. East Nilotic¶
The only survey of East Nilotic lexicon remains Voßen’s, and this can provide an impression of number marking morphology, although descriptions of individual languages provide more detail. For example, Kuku has unmarked nominals, with singulatives in some cases, and plurals, both suffixed. Table 29 shows examples of the main number-marking strategies in Kuku.
Gloss |
Affix |
sg |
Affix |
pl |
cattle tick |
-T(T) |
mɨ́sɨ́r.ɨtɨ́t |
-∅ |
másɛ̂r |
black ant |
-T |
múkúɲ.êt |
-∅ |
múkûn |
Bari |
-N + -T |
bari.nɪ́t |
-∅ |
barɪ |
hippo |
-∅ |
yárɔ́ |
-S + -N |
yárɔ́.Ɉɪn |
school |
-∅ |
sukúlu |
-K |
sukúlu.kíʔ |
nose |
-∅ |
kʊmɛ́ |
-S |
kʊmɛ́.sɪʔ |
cheek |
-∅ |
ŋɛ́bɪ́ |
-T |
ŋɛ́bɪ́.at |
speck |
-∅ |
bɛ́rɛt |
-N |
bɛ́rɛt.án |
hedgehog |
-∅ |
leɲɨpúɗut |
-T + -M |
leɲɨpúɗu(t)lɨ́n |
knife |
-∅ |
wálɪ́ |
-V |
wálɪ́.a |
Table 29. Kuku singulatives and plural markers
The underlying logic of the singulatives is evident; nouns that are considered inherently plural are unmarked, with individuals marked by suffix. Thus “Bari” is a nation and the singulative applies to a Bari person. The suffixes are all allomorphs of a basic -VT form, except for the additional nasal, which is either a person marker or the nasal also occurring in the plural. Plural suffixes can be reduced to a dental, a velar, a nasal and an underspecified vowel. The only unusual feature is the -sɪʔ suffix, which may be innovative.
4.9.3. South Nilotic¶
There are two published reconstructions of South Nilotic. Rottland includes a substantial comparative wordlist as well as discussions of number marking. Tucker & Bryan discuss number marking with respect to Pokot and Nandi-Kipsigis. Based on their illustration of Pokot, Table 30 extracts a sample of singular/plural pairings in Pokot, which illustrate singulatives in -V(V)N and -tV and plural in -kV. -V(V) suffixes are also common, but it is unclear how many are allomorphs and how many are distinct roots.
Gloss |
Affix |
sg |
Affix |
pl |
the calf |
-Tv |
mɔ̀ɔ̀ɣ.tâ |
-V |
mòóɣ.eeʔ |
the duiker |
-Tv |
cèptǐrkìc.tä́ |
-kV |
cèptǐrkìc.kä̂ |
the flea |
-VN + -Tv |
kə̀mə̀tyàán.tɛ́ɛ́ |
-kV |
kəmə́t.kä̂ |
the spear |
-Tv |
ŋɔ̀t.ə́t |
-V, -V(V) |
ŋät.w.éè |
the lover |
-VN + -Tv |
cä̀míín.téè |
-V |
*cä̀m.í |
the barred door |
-V |
mä̀rä̀n.èéʔ |
-kV |
mä̀rä̂n.kä̂ |
Table 30. Examples of Pokot number marking
Pokot shows evidence for an original singulative -V(V)N, which has been resuffixed with -tV(V).
The number system of Endo, another language of the Markweeta (Marakwet) group, is described by Zwarts. Endo has a wide range of singulative suffixes shown in Table 31, although once allomorphy is considered, they can probably be reduced to a rather simpler set. Zwarts argues that plurals constitute the unmarked set.
Gloss |
Affix |
sg |
pl |
cloud |
-tV |
pool.ta |
pool |
woman |
-ka |
kāār.kā |
kāār |
grasshopper |
-wa |
taalim.wa |
taalim |
cedar |
-wa |
tārāāk.wā |
taraak |
patch of grass |
-wa + -Vn |
sīūs.wāān |
sūūs |
medicine |
-wa + -Vn |
saakit.yaan |
saakit |
European |
-Vn |
chūmp.īīn |
chumpa |
shoe |
-V |
kwēēr.ā |
kwēēr |
Table 31. Endo singulative suffixes
Underlyingly, therefore. Endo has the singulatives -V(V)N, -tV, -V, -kV, and an unmarked plural. Despite the surface differences, the West Nilotic system in these two examples is broadly similar.
4.10. Synthesis¶
A feature of East Sudanic, and indeed Nilo-Saharan more generally, is extensive allomorphy. Each affix appears under several guises, often reflecting the stem to which is suffixed. Table 32 shows the typical allomorphs of East Sudanic nominal affixes:
Affix |
Interpretation |
Typical allomorphs |
-T |
dentals |
/t/, /ʈ/, /d/, /ɖ/ |
-K |
velars |
/k/, /g/ |
-N |
nasals |
/n/, /ŋ/, /ɲ/ |
-S |
fricatives |
/s/, /ʃ/, /ʤ/ |
-V |
non-central vowels |
/i/, /u/ |
-A |
central vowels |
/a/ |
Table 32: Allomorphs of East Sudanic nominal affixes
Table 33 shows the presence or absence of individual affixes in each branch, together with affix-stacking and gemination, as well as the table which supports this analysis.
Branch |
-T |
-K |
-N |
-V |
-S |
Aff. st. |
Gem. |
Ref. |
Nubian |
+ |
– |
+ |
– |
– |
+ |
– |
T. 9, 10 |
Nara |
+ |
+ |
– |
+ |
+ |
– |
+ |
T. 13 |
Nyima |
– |
? |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
T. 15, 16 |
Taman |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
– |
– |
T. 17 |
Surmic |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
– |
T. 19 |
E Jebel |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
+ |
– |
T. 20 |
Temein |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
T. 22, 23, 24 |
Daju |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
T. 26, 27 |
W Nilotic |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
+ |
– |
T. 28 |
E Nilotic |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
T. 29 |
S Nilotic |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
– |
+ |
– |
T. 30, 31 |
Table 33. East Sudanic nominal affixes and associated
The resultant pattern is not perfect but still indicative for the structure of East Sudanic. The number-marking suffixes form complete sets in En languages, with -S attested only in Nara. This implies that all five affixes were present in proto-East Sudanic but were preferentially lost in the Ek languages. Affix-stacking, though present in Nubian, is otherwise absent in Ek languages but is likely to be a retention from proto-East Sudanic. Gemination is too sparsely distributed to draw any conclusions, but is plausibly an independent development of no classificatory significance.
5. Internal Structure of East Sudanic¶
The evidence presented points to a common inheritance in East Sudanic number marking strategies. The distribution of affix-stacking and complete affix sets suggest that apart from common lexemes, Ek languages are characterized by a common loss of these characters. In the light of this, Figure 1 presents a revised internal classification of East Sudanic, grouping together the Ek languages as Northern East Sudanic, but leaving the others as independent branches.
Figure 1. Proposed internal structure of East Sudanic
It seems plausible that further results should be attainable from a deeper examination of the lexicon, since the effect of affix accretion and reanalysis obscures cognacy of roots.
6. East Sudanic within Nilo-Saharan¶
The attentive reader will have observed that many of the affixes identified in this paper have been attested outside the proposed East Sudanic. Indeed, the “t-k substratum” proposed by Tucker & Bryan is far more widespread. Particular candidates are Kuliak and Kadu, a subgroup sometimes excluded from Nilo-Saharan altogether. This section considers briefly the morphology of these two groups in relation to our understanding of East Sudanic.
I have explored this morphology in the Kadu languages while Gilley has looked into number-marking in Katcha in some detail. Typically, Kadu languages have a three-term system with a singulative in -t and plural in -k and -N. They also have case-marking, which is only sporadically attested in East Sudanic languages and cannot be reconstructed, as well as sex-gender, which is entirely absent. This suggests that the -T, -K, and -N affixes can be reconstructed further back in Nilo-Saharan, but the -V and -S are distinctive to East Sudanic. The gemination found in Nara and East Nilotic is not recorded in Kadu, but may not be reconstructible to proto-East Sudanic.
The Kuliak languages, a small group in northeast Uganda which includes Ik, So, and Nyangi, were originally included by Greenberg within East Sudanic, but have long been treated as an independent branch of Nilo-Saharan. However, their lexicon has been heavily impacted both by their immediate neighbors, the Karimojong, but also by Southern Nilotic in some past era. Moreover, Lamberti has noted striking resemblances to the East Cushitic languages. Heine presents an overview and reconstruction of Kuliak as it was known at the period. More recently, Carlin and Schrock have provided extensive documentation of Soo and Ik (Icétôd). Kuliak languages have three-term number marking, with singulative in -T and plurative in -K, -N, as well as allowing affix-stacking, but also have a striking nominal case-marking system not present in East Sudanic. There is no evidence for gemination.
In conclusion, East Sudanic is characterized by a series of affixes, which have developed out of a smaller set which are also present in related branches of Nilo-Saharan. Unlike Kadu, there is no trace of gender and the case marking. Case marking is also characteristic of Kuliak languages, which only have a reduced affix set. These suggest that there is a higher node within Nilo-Saharan which included these three branches, but that the East Sudanic language developed specific morphological features (or perhaps lost them at the level of the proto-language). It is striking that the lexical unity of East Sudanic is not more apparent, given the conservatism of the number-marking system.
7. Abbreviations¶
- A: any central vowel ±ATR;
- C: any consonant;
- I: any high front vowel ±ATR;
- K: velar consonant;
- N: any nasal consonant;
- pl: plural;
- S: any fricative consonant;
- sg: singular;
- T: any dental consonant;
- V: any vowel;
- X: any phoneme.
8. Bibliography¶
Alamin Mubarak, Suzan.
bib⁄“An Initial Description of Laggori Noun Morphology and Noun Phrase.” In Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004, edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 9–24.
Aviles, Arthur J.
bib⁄The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language. MA Thesis, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks, 2008.
Bell, Herman.
bib⁄“Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian.” Sudan Notes and Records 7 (1975): pp. 1–36.
Bender, M. Lionel. Comparative Omotic Lexicon. Carbondale: SIU, 2003.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 45 (1996): pp. 139–150.
Bender, M. Lionel.
bib⁄“Proto-Koman Phonology and Lexicon.” Africa and Ubersee 66, no. 2 (1983): pp. 259–297.
Bender, M. Lionel. “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 63 (2000): pp. 103–120.
Bender, M. Lionel.
bib⁄“The Genetic Position of Nilotic i: Independent Pronouns.” In “Mehr als nur Worte…”: Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland, edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 89–119.
Bender, M. Lionel.
bib⁄“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan I: Phonology.” Afrika und Übersee 80 (1997): pp. 189–215.
Bender, M. Lionel.
bib⁄“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan II: Comparative Lexicon.” Afrika und Übersee 81 (1998): pp. 39–64.
Bender, M. Lionel.
bib⁄The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005.
Bender, Lionel M.
bib⁄The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay. 2nd edition. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997.
Blench, Roger M.
bib⁄“Introduction to the Temein Languages.” In Nuba Mountain Language Studies, edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg and Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 485–500.
Blench, Roger M.
bib⁄“The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation: Between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic.” In Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004, edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 101–127.
Boyeldieu, Pascal.
bib⁄“Dadjo-Sila.” In La qualification dans les langues africaines, edited by Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler, and Kerstin Winkelmann. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2008: pp. 57–70.
Browne, Gerald M.
bib⁄Old Nubian Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.
Bryan, Margaret.
bib⁄“The T–K Languages: A New Substratum.” Africa 29, no. 1 (1959): pp. 1–21. doi: www⁄10.2307/1157496.
Carlin, Eithne.
bib⁄The So language. Cologne: Universität zu Köln, 1993.
Cohen, Kevin B.
bib⁄Aspects of the Grammar of Kukú. Munich: Lincom Europa, 2000.
Dawd, Abushush & R.J. Hayward.
bib⁄“Nara.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32, no. 2 (2002): pp. 249–255. doi: www⁄10.1017/S0025100302001068.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄“Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan.” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31 (2011): pp. 13–46. doi: www⁄10.1515/jall.2010.003.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2011.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Historical Origin.” Afrikanistik Online 11, no. 3 (2014): pp. 1–23. www⁄https://www.afrikanistik-aegyptologie-online.de/archiv/2014/3859/fulltext/view?set_language=en.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
bib⁄“Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages.” Anthropological Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2000): pp. 214–261.
Edgar, John T.
bib⁄“First Steps toward Proto-Tama.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Nilo-Saharan Conference: Bayreuth Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1989, edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1991: pp. 111–131.
Ehret, Christopher.
bib⁄A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001.
Ehret, Christopher.
bib⁄Southern Nilotic History: Linguistic Approaches to the Study of the Past. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971.
Gilley, Leoma G.
bib⁄“Katcha Noun Morphology.” In Nuba Mountain Language Studies, edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
bib⁄“Nilo-Saharan Moveable-<em>k</em> as a Stage III Article (with a Penutian Typological Parallel).” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 3, no. 2 (1981): pp. 105–112. www⁄10.1515/jall.1981.3.2.105.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
bib⁄“Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6, no. 2 (1950): pp. 143–160. www⁄10.1086/soutjanth.6.2.3628639.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
bib⁄The Languages of Africa. The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1963.
Güldemann, Tom. “The Historical-Comparative Status of East Sudanic.” In Proceedings of the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, edited by Roger M. Blench, Petra Weschenfelder, and Georg Ziegelmeyer. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, forthcoming.
Hayward, Richard J.
bib⁄“Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara.” In “Mehr als nur Worte…”: Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland, edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 247–267.
Heine, Bernd.
bib⁄The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda. Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1976.
Jakobi, Angelika & Ahmed Hamdan.
bib⁄“Number Marking on Karko Nouns.” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 2 (2015): pp. 271–289. doi: www⁄10.5070/D62110017.
Joseph, Clement Lopeyok, et al.
bib⁄Laarim Grammar Book. Juba: SIL-Sudan, 2012.
Kellermann, P.
bib⁄Eine grammatische Skizze des Tama auf der Basis der Daten von R.C. Stevenson. MA thesis, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universitat, Mainz, 2000.
Lamberti, Marcello.
bib⁄Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1988.
Norton, Russell. “Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies 7 (2020): article⁄this issue
Norton, Russell.
bib⁄“Number in Ama Verbs.” Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages 10 (2012): pp. 75–94.
Rilly, Claude.
bib⁄Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique. Leuven: Peeters, 2009.
Rilly, Claude & Alex de Voogt.
bib⁄The Meroitic Language and Writing System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Ross, James S. A Preliminary Attempt at the Reconstruction of Proto-East Sudanic Phonology and Lexicon. MA Thesis, Southern Illinois University, 1990.
Rottland, Franz.
bib⁄Die südnilotischen Sprachen: Beschriebung, Vergleichung und Rekonstruktion. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982.
Schrock, Terrill B.
bib⁄The Ik Language: Dictionary and Grammar Sketch. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2016.
Starostin, George.
bib⁄“Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I: On the Genetic Unity of Nubian-Nara-Tama.” Journal of Language Relationship [Вопросы языкового родства] 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113.
Stevenson, Roland C.
bib⁄“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” Afrika und Übersee 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115.
Stevenson, Roland C.
bib⁄“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” Afrika und Übersee 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196.
Stirtz, Timothy M.
bib⁄A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan. Utrecht: LOT, 2011.
Storch, Anne.
bib⁄The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2005.
Thelwall, Robin A.
bib⁄“A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.” In Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigal 1874–1974, edited by E. Ganslmayr and H. Jungraithmayr, pp. 197–210. Bremen: Übersee Museum, 1977.
Trigger, Bruce G. “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship.” Kush 12 (1964): 188–194.
Tucker, Archibald N.
bib⁄The Eastern Sudanic Languages, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan.
bib⁄Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. Noun Classification in Kalenjin: Nandi-Kipsigis. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1964.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. Noun Classification in Kalenjin: Päkot. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1962.
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan.
bib⁄The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Voogt, Alex de
bib⁄“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” Studies in Language 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. doi: www⁄10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev.
Voßen, Rainer.
bib⁄The Eastern Nilotes: Linguistic and Historical Reconstructions. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1982.
Werner, Roland.
bib⁄Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993.
Yigezu, Moges & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal.
bib⁄“Notes on Baale.” In Surmic Languages and Cultures, edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273–317.
Zwarts, Joost.
bib⁄“Number in Endo-Marakwet.” In Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001, edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2007: pp. 281–294.
editor⁄Henriette Hafsaas
1. Biography¶
Henriette Hafsaas is an archaeologist researching the relationship between peoples in ancient Nubia and Egypt from a southern perspective. She completed her PhD thesis titled “War on the Southern Frontier of the Emerging State of Ancient Egypt” at the University of Bergen in 2015. In the dissertation, she argues that warfare was a significant form of contact between Nubia and Egypt during the 4th millennium BCE, leading to the emergence of a distinct Nubian culture called the A-group people in the mid-4th millennium BCE and to the collapse of the A-group society towards the end of the 4th millennium BCE.
Hafsaas has worked on various archaeological projects in Sudan, Palestine, and Norway. In Sudan, she has been part of the Medieval Sai Project, which focused on the medieval cathedral of Sai. Hafsaas has published several articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. She is also engaged in ethical dilemmas for archaeologists.
Currently, Hafsaas is the Head of Research at Volda University College in Norway, and she continues to pursue her research interests in the past of ancient Nubia and Egypt.
editor⁄Alexandros Tsakos
1. Biography¶
Alexandros Tsakos is working at the Special Collections of the University of Bergen library. He specializes in Christian Nubia, especially religious literacy, and the cult of the Archangel Michael. He has worked in the field and in museums in Sudan and is managing editor of the Nubiological Journal Dotawo.
editor⁄Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei
1. Biography¶
Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei is a publisher and philologist, specialized in Old Nubian. He is co-managing editor of Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies.