Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic 9783110874211, 9783110130997

Citation preview

Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic

Publications in African Languages and Linguistics The aim of t h i s series is to offer, at regular intervals, carefully w o r k e d out studies or collections of papers in A f r i c a n linguistics. In this w a y , it is hoped t h a t important w o r k can be brought to t h e attention of a wider linguistic audience including scholars w h o are not primarily concerned w i t h A f r i c a n linguistics but w h o w i s h to keep abreast of recent advances in the fields of historical linguistics, theoretical phonology and linguistic typology, all of w h i c h , incidentally, tend to rely rather heavily on A f r i c a n language data. A t the same time, the editors intend to include occasional volumes w h i c h offer general accounts of major language groups, hoping that such surveys w i l l be of assistance not only to linguists w o r k i n g on A f r i c a n languages but also to those w h o specialize in other areas. Throughout the series an attempt w i l l be made to strike a healthy balance b e t w e e n theory oriented and data oriented research. Edit or s: George N. Clements Didier L. Goyvaerts

A dvisory b oard: J o h n Goldsmith (Chicago) Claire Grégoire (Tervuren) Frank Heny (Middlebury, Vermont) Larry M. Hyman (Berkeley) W i l l i a m R. Leben (Stanford) Thilo C. Schadeberg (Leiden)

Other books in this series: 1. Ivan R. Dihoff (ed.). Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 1) 2. Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. The Turkana Language 3. G.N. Clements and J. Goldsmith (eds.). Autosegmental Studies in Bantu Tone 4. Koen Bogers, Harry van der Hulst and Maarten Mous (eds.). The Phonological Representation of Suprasegmentals 5. Jonathan Kaye, Hilda Koopman, Dominique Sportiche and André Dugas (eds.). Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 2) 6. Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.). Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 3) 7. David Odden (ed.). Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 4) 8. Paul Newman and Robert D. Botne. Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 5) 9. Isabelle Haïk and Laurice Tuller (eds.). Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 6) 10. Mary M. Clark. The Tonal System of Igbo 11. John P. Hutchison and Victor Manfredi. Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 7j

Paul Newman

1990 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Providence RI - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 A M Dordrecht, The Netherlands Distributor for the U.S.A. and Canada: Foris Publications USA Inc. P.O. Box 5904 Providence R.I. 02903 U.S.A.

CIP-DATA KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Newman, Paul Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic / Paul Newman. - Dordrecht [etc.] : Foris. (Publications in African languages and linguistics ; 12) With ref. ISBN 90-6765-499-X SISO afri 837.1 U D C 809.6-5 Subject heading: African linguistics.

ISBN 90 6765 499 X (paper) © 1990 Foris Publications - Dordrecht

No part of this publication m a ) be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission f r o m the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by I C G Printing, Dordrecht.

Table of Contents

Preface

ix

Abbreviations, Symbols, and Key to Transcription

xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Chadic classification 1.1.1. Sources and citations 1.2. Number and gender 1.2.1. A/B/A pattern 1.2.2. A/B/a pattern 1.2.3. A/B/C pattern 1.2.4. Singular/plural

1 1 5 6 6 10 11 12

Chapter 2: Noun Plurals 2.1. *-aki 2.1.1. West 2.1.2. Biu-Mandara 2.1.3. East 2.1.4. Masa 2.2. *-n2.2.1. West 2.2.2. Biu-Mandara 2.2.3. East 2.2.4. Masa 2.3. *-(f(i) 2.3.1. West 2.3.2. Biu-Mandara 2.3.3. East 2.4. *-i 2.4.1. West 2.4.2. Biu-Mandara 2.4.3. East 2.4.4. Masa 2.5. *-ai/*-ay 2.5.1. West 2.5.2. Biu-Mandara 2.5.3. East 2.5.4. Masa

15 16 16 18 20 21 21 22 24 25 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 34

vi

Table of Contents 2.6. -e 2.6.1. West 2.6.2. Biu-Mandara 2.6.3. East 2.7. -au/-aw 2.7.1. West 2.7.2. East 2.8. * Internal -a2.8.1. West 2.8.2. Biu-Mandara 2.8.3. East 2.9. Suffixal reduplication *-VC(V) 2.9.1. West 2.9.2. Biu-Mandara 2.9.3. East 2.10. Préfixai and infixal reduplication 2.10.1. West 2.10.2. Biu-Mandara 2.11. Internal consonant gemination 2.11.1. West 2.11.2. East 2.12. Discussion

Chapter 3: Chadic Pluractionals 3.1. Meaning and function 3.2. Pluractional morphology 3.3. Reduplication 3.3.1. Pattern 1: CV- + Verb 3.3.1.1. West 3.3.1.2. Biu-Mandara 3.3.1.3. East 3.3.1.4. Pattern la: CVC- + Verb 3.3.2. Pattern 2: Verb + -(V)C(V) 3.3.2.1. West 3.3.2.2. Biu-Mandara 3.3.2.3. East 3.3.3. Pattern 3: Full reduplication 3.3.4. Pattern 4: Gemination 3.3.4.1. West 3.3.4.2. East 3.4. Vocalic ablaut/apophony 3.4.1. West 3.4.2. Biu-Mandara 3.4.3. East 3.5. Suffixation 3.5.1. -cf3.5.2. -ay/-aw

35 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 46 46 47 48 48 53 54 58 59 59 59 61 63 64 65 65 67 67 67 68 69 71 72 72 74 76 76 77 78

Table of Contents 3.5.3. -tV 3.6. Discussion 3.7. Noun plurals vs. pluractional verbs

vii 80 83 86

Chapter 4: Pluractionals in Hausa and Ngizim 4.1. Hausa 4.1.1. Productive pluractionals 4.1.2. Frozen pluractionals 4.1.3. Other possible frozen pluractionals 4.1.3.1. Medial geminate verbs 4.1.3.2. Préfixai Caa- reduplication 4.1.3.3. Suffixal -aaCV reduplication 4.2. Ngizim 4.2.1. Préfixai reduplication 4.2.2. Suffixal reduplication

89 89 90 93 97 98 99 100 102 103 105

Chapter 5: Plural Verbs 5.1. Subject/verb number agreement in Chadic 5.1.1. West 5.1.2. Biu-Mandara 5.1.3. East 5.2. Discussion 5.3. Afroasiatic implications

107 107 108 Ill 116 117 118

Chapter 6: Plural Imperatives 6.1. Number distinctions not indicated 6.2. Switch to conjugated verb form 6.3. Preverbal pronouns 6.4. Suffixal pronouns 6.5. General number agreement 6.6. Special plural imperative markers 6.6.1. -am (s) 6.6.2. -a 6.6.3. -unu 6.7. Discussion

121 121 121 122 122 123 125 125 127 129 130

Chapter 7: Conclusion

133

Appendix: Inventory of Chadic languages and alternative names

137

Notes

147

Bibliography

155

Index of language names

163

Preface

This book grew out of a comparative Chadic project that was originally focused on grammatical gender. As the work developed, it became clear that the treatment of gender divorced from number was descriptively and conceptually unsatisfactory, since agreement in Chadic tended to be a three-term system of which plurality was an essential component. So the book on gender that was supposed to be finished (and had even been announced by the publisher - to whom I express my apologies) kept being put off while necessary information on plurality was incorporated. Not surprisingly, the pastiche didn't work, with the result that the gender book kept getting worse rather than better. In the meantime, the further I delved into the study of plurality in Chadic, the more interested I became in this as an Afroasiatic as well as a Chadic phenomenon. Unlike the gender study, which, although extremely interesting, didn't seem to be contributing in a major way to our understanding of protoChadic, the study of plurality was leading to historical findings that struck me as empirically well supported as well as linguistically important, both within the family and cross-linguistically. And so I put the gender material aside - to be resurrected at a later date, I hope - and decided to produce a new work focused on Chadic plurality in its various aspects. This is the work presented here. A comparative study of this sort, which analyzes data from a large number of individual languages, depends on the often unappreciated basic descriptive studies of numerous other scholars. The names of these scholars will be found in the bibliography, with the understanding that their citation there is accompanied by my sincere appreciation and thanks. Since this work has taken so many years to reach fruition, it is impossible to acknowledge individually all of the people who in some manner or other contributed to the development of my general ideas about Chadic linguistics and thus contributed in a real sense to the making of this book. I would, however, like to single out Ekkehard Wolff, who has been an unusually loyal and stimulating colleague in the Chadic field, Zygmunt Frajzyngier, who has generously shared materials and ideas with me, and Joseph Greenberg, who has been, and who remains, my inspiration in historical and comparative linguistics. Most of all, I would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of Russell Schuh, with whom I have been closely associated over the past twenty years and whose first-rate linguistic scholarship has established him among the world's leading Chadicists.

x

Preface

Much of the basic comparative work on which this study is based was carried out at the University of Leiden under a U.S. National Science Foundation grant, no. BNS 77-16841, awarded to the Center for Applied Linguistics. I am grateful to the University of Leiden for being a hospitable host institution and to CAL for administering the grant with efficiency and patience. Completion of the book was accomplished while I was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California, with the support of NSF grant no. BNS 87-00864. The Center provided not only a marvelous intellectual environment, but also invaluable practical help from the support staff, of whom I would particularly like to thank Margaret Amara and Rosanne Torre in the library, Kathleen Much, the technical editor, and Patrick Goebel, the computer consultant. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the valuable computer assistance provided by Michael Newman, who was also a source of good humor and general encouragement throughout the year while the book was being completed.

Paul Newman Stanford, California July, 1989

Abbreviations, symbols, and key to transcription

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

AA = Afroasiatic BM = Biu-Mandara C = consonant EC = East Chadic excl = exclusive (1st person plural) f = feminine (singular) Hi = high tone ICP = intransitive copy pronoun incl = inclusive (1st person plural) iter = iterative Lo = low tone m = masculine (singular) NW = Northwest dialect(s) of Hausa p, pi = plural PC = Proto-Chadic sg = singular SH = Standard Hausa tr = transitive V = vowel WC = West Chadic 1 = 1st person 2 = 2nd person 3 = 3rd person * = reconstructed ?? = synchronically ungrammatical > = historically goes to -» = synchronically changes to

KEY TO TRANSCRIPTION

b, (f = globalized (implosive) stops k = globalized ejective stop ts [in Hausa] = globalized ejective sibilant or affricate ' [in Hausa] = glottal stop (?) C [in Tamazight] = any emphatic consonant

xii

Abbreviations, symbols, and key to transcription

eh, j = alveo-palatal affricates (c, J) sh, zh = palatal fricatives (s, i) x, gh = velar fricatives (x, y) hi, hi = lateral fricatives ("hlaterals") (4-, r, r = rolled rhotic (in languages where it contrasts with another /r/) a = schwa (any mid to high central vowel) aa (any vowel) = long vowel à(a) (any vowel) = low tone fl(a) (any vowel) = falling tone à(a) (any vowel) = rising tone à(a) (any vowel) = high tone, in 3-tone languages only. In 2-tone languages, high tone is unmarked; in 3-tone languages, mid tone is unmarked.

Chapter 1

Introduction

This book is a study of derivational and inflectional formations embodying plurality in the Chadic language family. The presentation is essentially descriptive/comparative, that is, I have attempted to document fully the nature and extent of particular constructions in present-day Chadic languages. My ultimate objectives, however, are historical, namely to come to a better understanding of what various morphological constructions must have been like in Proto-Chadic. It should be emphasized that this study is focused on matters internal to Chadic, although there are occasions when 1 haven't been able to resist drawing comparisons with similar structures in other Afroasiatic languages. The term "plurality" encompasses various notions of pluralness or multiplicity including distributiveness and repetitiveness. It is treated in this work in four major areas: noun (and adjectival) plurals, plural action ( = "pluractional") verbs, plural verb stems required by concord rules, and plural imperatives used when a command is directed at more than one addressee. Plurality in Chadic is also an important feature of pronouns, demonstratives, genitive markers, and such. These categories are not described in detail, but they are illustrated as part of a discussion of gender/number patterns (see § 1.2).

1.1. Chadic classification The Chadic family, which is a constituent member of the Afroasiatic phylum, contains some 140 or so languages. A full list together with alternative nomenclature is given in the Appendix. According to the most generally accepted classification (Newman 1977a), which is presented here with a few modifications, the family consists of four coordinate branches: I. West, II. Biu-Mandara (= Central), III. East, and IV. Masa ( = Southern). These branches divide into subbranches (A,B,C), which in turn divide into discrete groups (1, 2, 3, etc.) containing from one to more than a dozen languages. In the text, the individual languages are identified with reference to these levels by a three-term notation system; for instance, Hausa is (I.A.1) and Lamang is (II.A.4). Intermediate groupings between the level of the group and the subbranch are not coded in the referential system, but they are indicated in the family tree

2

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

Figure 1: Chadic Family Tree

BRANCH

SUBBRANCH

GROUP

1. 2.

Hausa Bole Angas Ron

1. 2. 3.

Bade Warji Saya

I. West

CHADICj—II. Biu-Mandara FAMILY

1. Tera -2. Bura 3. Higi 4. Mandara 5. Matakam 6. Sukur 7. Daba 8. Bata 1. 2.

Kotoko Musgu

1.

Gidar

1. 2. 3.

Somrai Lele Kera

1. 2. 3.

Dangla Mukulu Sokoro

1.

Masa

'III. East

IV. Masa-

3

Introduction diagram (figure 1). Subclassification below the level of the group is also not coded, but it is shown in the classificatory listing (table 1) by the use of lower case letters (a, b, etc.) and differential punctuation (mainly semicolon as opposed to comma). Within the individual groups or subgroups, the language after which the group is named is listed first followed by other languages in alphabetical order.

Table 1: Chadic Language Classification I.

West Branch A. Subbranch West-A 1. Hausa group: Hausa, Gwandara 2. Bole group a. Bole, Bele, Kirfi, Deno, Galambu, Gera, Geruma, Kwami, Maha, Ngamo; Karekare b. Kanakuru; Kupto, Pero, Tangale 3. Angas group a. Angas, Chip, Kofyar, Mapun, Sura; Goemai, Koenoem, Montol, Tal b. Gerka 4. Ron group a. Ron, Karfa, Kulere, Sha, Shagawu b. Fyer B. Subbranch West-B 1. Bade group: Bade, Duwai, Ngizim 2. Warji group a. Warji, Diri, Jimbin, Kariya, Mburku, Miya, Siri, Tsagu b. Pa'a 3. Saya group a. Saya, Dass, Geji, Polchi, Zeem b. Guruntum, Ju c. Boghom, Laar, Mangas II. Biu-Mandara Branch A. Subbranch BM-A 1. Tera group a. Tera, Jara b. Ga'anda, Hona 2. Bura group a. Bura/Pabir, Chibak, Putai b. Kilba, Margi 3. Higi group: Higi/Kapsiki, Bana, Hya 4. Mandara group a. Mandara; Dghwede, Glavda, Guduf, Gvoko; Podoko b. Lamang, Mabas

4

Nominal

and verbal plurality in Chadic

5. Matakam group a. Matakam, Chuvok, Mefele; Balda, Gisiga, Gisiga-South, Mofu-Gudur, Mofu-North; Dugwor, Merey, Zulgo; Mada, Moloko, Muyang, Ouldeme b. Muktile c. Mboku, Ndreme 6. Sukur group: Sukur 7. Daba group: Daba, Buwal, Gawar, Hina 8. Bata group a. Bata/Bachama; Gude, Holma, Nzangi b. Gudu, Ngwaba B. Subbranch BM-B 1. Kotoko group: Kotoko, Logone, Midah; Buduma 2. Musgu group: Musgu, Mbara C. Subbranch BM-C 1. Gidar group: Gidar III. East Branch A. Subbranch East-A 1. Somrai group: Somrai, Ndam, Tumak; Gadang, Miltu, Mod, Sarwa 2. Lele group: Lele, Nancere; Gabri, Kabalai, Tobanga 3. Kera group: Kera, Kwang B. Subbranch East-B 1. Dangla group a. Dangaleat, Bidiya, Jegu, Migama, Mogum b. Birgit, Kujarke, Mahwa, Mubi, Toram 2. Mukulu group: Mukulu 3. Sokoro group: Sokoro, Barain, Saba IV. Masa branch 1. Masa group: Masa, Marba, Musey; Mesme, Peve, Zime

The classification presented here is probably reasonably accurate in most instances, but it is far from definitive. Although the purpose of this study is not to provide a detailed discussion or justification of the classification, a few comments would seem to be in order. The West branch (I) easily forms a unity within the family. It has two distinct subbranches (A and B). The only point of uncertainly in West branch subclassification concerns the position of the Saya group (I.B.3), sometimes referred to as the "South Bauchi" group. It was originally placed in West-B primarily because of its traditional association with the languages of the Warji group (I.B.2), the former "North Bauchi" group. (This is an instructive example of nomenclature affecting, rather than reflecting substantive classification. The use of the common term "Bauchi" for the two groups naturally predisposes linguists to treat them

Introduction as having an especially close relationship.) In a number of respects, however, Saya group languages have properties that are more typical of languages in the West-A Angas group (I.A.3) than of West-B languages such as Warji or Bade. Most likely, the assignment of Saya to West-B is in fact correct and the similarities with Angas are due to contact or the spread of areal features, but the matter needs to be investigated. Within Biu-Mandara (II), the difference between the A and B subbranches seems much greater than that between West-A and West-B, so much so that the unity of Biu-Mandara as now defined is not above challenge. My feeling is that Biu-Mandara is valid as a distinct branch, that is, that any two languages in B-M are more closely related to one another than they are to any language in any other branch - but this needs to be verified. Within Biu-Mandara, the unity of BM-A seems evident, notwithstanding the large number of languages involved and the linguistic diversity exhibited. As far as BM-B is concerned, Kotoko and Musgu would seem to go together wjth no difficulty. The position of Gidar, on the other hand, is problematic. Although one can easily classify it as Biu-Mandara rather than West Chadic, it doesn't look like a typical BM-A language; nor is there anything linguistically striking about it that justifies putting it together with the other BM-B groups. I have, therefore, taken it out of BM-B, where it was previously classified, and provisionally set it up as a distinct isolate (II.C.1) within BiuMandara. Like the West, the East branch (III) also stands as a readily identifiable unit with two clearly distinct subbranches. The classificatory problems all appear to be lower-level matters of detail. The branch whose correct classification still presents the most serious problem is the Masa branch (IV). Masa, which consists of a single closely related group of languages, was traditionally thought to be a member of the same group as Musgu (II.B.2). This was the position taken by Westermann and Bryan (1952:166ff) and still adhered to by a number of linguists (e.g. Jungraithmayr 1981). My own feeling, however, is that the observed similaries between Masa and Musgu are due to cultural and geographical contact rather than phylogenetic closeness and that Masa belongs neither in the same group as Musgu nor even in the same branch.1 I have therefore extracted Masa from Biu-Mandara and provisionally set it up as a fourth independent branch.

1.1.1. Sources and Citations In a comparative study of this sort, one necessarily draws on primary descriptions provided by other scholars. If one tried to give the source for each example cited from every language, the result would be so cumbersome that the entire academic enterprise would bog down. I have therefore adopted the following (I hope satisfactory) practice. Unless

5

6

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

indicated otherwise, it is to be understood that my source for examples cited is the standard reference work on that language. Thus Margi data are assumed to be taken from Hoffmann (1963), Ron data from Jungraithmayr (1970), Ga'anda data from R. Newman (1971), and so forth. The bibliography provides an extensive listing of all works on Chadic consulted in this study, whether actually cited or not. Whenever there is particular reason to identify a source explicitly, e.g. where there is a question of interpretation or a direct quotation is used, I have always done so. In the numbered examples, the language cited is always identified by an abbreviation in square brackets, e.g. [H] indicates Hausa and [Ko] indicates Kotoko. Sometimes the identification may seem redundant, since the language to be exemplified has just been mentioned by name in the text, but with so many languages involved, extra care and explicitness at the point of the examples themselves seem fully justified in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding. The key to the abbreviations is included in the language inventory provided in the Appendix. Possibly redundant, but also important, identification is also provided by the referential classification scheme. When a language is introduced in the text, it is always accompanied by its classificatory number, for instance Ngizim (I.B.I) or Kera (III.A3). This allows the reader to see immediately whether the languages being discussed (whose names may not be familiar) are closely related or belong to distant branches of the family.

1.2. Number and gender One can assert with confidence that Proto-Chadic had grammatical gender, this being part of its Afroasiatic inheritance. Approximately half of present-day Chadic languages have gender, the loss elsewhere having occurred independently a number of times in different groups at different times. Gender in Chadic is (and always was) a two-term opposition: masculine vs. feminine. There are no Chadic languages with a neuter as opposed to m/f, nor are there any Chadic languages that have a Bantu-type system of multiple classes. Gender is never distinguished in the plural, thus there are a maximum of three grammatical categories: m = masculine singular, f = feminine singular, and p = common plural. 2 From the point of view of morphophonological or morphosyntactic organization, the languages that have gender exhibit a variety of gender/number patterns.

1.2.1. AIBIA pattern In describing Hausa (I.A.1) linguists have often said that plurals are all masculine regardless of the gender of the corresponding singulars. This

7

Introduction statement is generally illustrated by examples such as the following (where the tone of the "stabilizer" nee/cee is opposite that of the preceding tone): (1) [H]

dookii nee goodìyaa cèe dawaakii nèe goodìyooyii nèe

it's a horse (m) it's a mare (f) they're horses (p) they're mares (p)

Contrary to the oft-repeated statement, it turns out that plurals and masculine singulars are normally not the same in Hausa, morphologically or syntactically. They differ in personal pronouns, in demonstratives, in past participles, in augmentative adjectives, and in agentive and ethnonymic derivations, just to mention a few. The fact is that the grammatical equivalence of m = p is limited essentially to three morphemes, which are etymologically (if not synchronically) variants of the same deictic element. These morphemes are (a) the "stabilizer" nee/cee (/g6q kuii k&/t&/ku kdnto/tdnto/kunto kankaq/tankoq/kunkor) aduo g&q/aduo g&ttd kuri d&g/kuri d&ttd adi h&q/adi h^tti kurddu h&q/kurbdu h&tt£ gir gi aiw6t/g&r£ hi aiwdt k&c di aiw£t/k6?ic hi aiwat

1.2.3. A/B/C pattern Sometimes the masculine, feminine, and plural forms are equally distinct from one another, using either variants of the same morpheme or three separate roots. This turns out to be a relatively uncommon system in Chadic, although it is found here and there.

1.2.3.1. In West Chadic, genitive/linking particles typically display an A/B/A (or A/B/a) pattern. In one particular modifying construction, however, Sha (1.A.4), one of the Ron languages, has three distinct forms, all built on a common root m-. As indicated earlier, its normal genitive construction, on the other hand, exhibits A/B/a: (15) [Sha] male elephant female bovine/pl cf. king's friend/pl king's wife/pl

tdsi m£ did&m nisi mu r&nd6q/nisyas mi r&nd6r) camasi md s&f/camis&s mi s&f ?amtiy ti s&f/muz&y mi s&f

12

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

The Bokkos dialect of Ron has one construction in which it is the feminine marker that is unexpectedly identical to the plural: (16) [R/B] beautiful sword (m) beautiful tortoise (f) beautiful eyebrows (p)

wal mâ deti hùur mu deti finvan mu deti

The probable explanation for this aberrant case is that Ron-Bokkos originally had the particles »mâ/mû/mi like closely related Sha, whereupon the vowel in the plural form »mi shifted to /u/ under the influence of the bilabial consonant. Thus a very normal phonological process resulted in a morphological pattern, which, by Chadic standards, is very abnormal.

1.2.3.2. The definite article in Kotoko (II.B.l) has three distinct m/f/p forms s6/d6/y6. It is interesting to see these articles, which manifest the A/B/C pattern, used in demonstrative constructions along with the proximal/distal deictics, which exhibit the A/B/a pattern: (17) [Ko] the chief mfee-so; the woman garam-do; the people meegi-yo this room k&aru-nd&a-so; this knife miyoo-rdnduwtie-do these rooms/knives k&aruwe-ndfc(e)-yo/miywe-ndfe(e)-yo that room k&aru-n&atfe-so; that knife miyoo-r6nt£-do those rooms/knives k&aruwe-nfeetfe-yo/miywe-nfeetfe-yo

1.2.3.3. Kera (III.A.3) has an elaborate system of gender and number marking. Although the A/B/a pattern is probably the most prevalent, the A/B/C pattern is also well attested. (18) [Ke] this man/woman/these people hulum t6q / halga t6rj / kaa t6q strong man hulum ba saBagi; ripe fruit (m) w£dakap&q ba naan£ charming girl tar da ripe melon (f) avd da naan67 hot water (p) kan ga cawd; ripe corn (p) k£as£w ga naane

1.2.4. Singular¡Plural With all of the focus on the three terms, masculine, feminine, and plural, Chadic scholars often lose sight of the fact that the basic opposition in many cases in many languages is simply singular vs. plural. In Hausa, for example, the basic morphological distinction in ethnonymics is between the singulars formed with the prefix b&- and the plurals formed with the suffix -aawaa (see Newman 1984a.) There is a secondary

Introduction

13

derivation in the singular whereby feminines are formed from corresponding masculines, but the first cut is clearly sg/pl. Similarly, the main distinction in augmentative adjectives is between singulars (with related m/f pairs) and plurals (see R. Newman 1988): (19) [H] Hausa person m/f/p Gobir person m/f/p broad m/f/p thin, svelte m/f/p

b&haushfee/b&haushiyaa/h&us&awaa b&g6obirii/b&g6obiraa/goobiraawaa fandamii/fandamaa/fandam-fandam santaleelee/santaleeliyaa/santalaa-sant^laa

In Kanakuru (I.A.2), where grammatical morphemes often reflect a three term system, adjectives and adverbs of stative operate strictly on a sg/pl basis: (20) [K] deep short white squatting (state) seated

singular

plural

juduk tappa popolok kup sharap

judujuduk tatap populhjen kukup sheshiren

Chapter 2

Noun Plurals

One of the striking characteristics of Chadic languages is the multiplicity of ways they form noun plurals. This has long been commented on by Hausaists and has also attracted the attention of early scholars interested in Chadic/"Hamitic" connections (e.g. Lukas 1937/38). Not only does one find numerous plural formations throughout the family, but one also finds a surfeit of plural formations within individual languages. At the most surface level, Hausa, for instance, has some 40 different plural formations. Although these can be reduced to a smaller number of morphological classes, one is still left with at least a dozen distinct plural patterns. Similarly, Kanakuru (I.A.2) and Bade (I.B.I) in West Chadic, Kotoko (II.B.l) in Biu-Mandara, and Dangaleat (III.B.l) in East Chadic all have rich and complex systems of noun plural morphology. There are, of course, Chadic languages where this is not the case. Pero (I.A.2), for instance, doesn't mark noun plurals at all, with the exception of a couple of suppletive forms. Angas (I.A.3), employs its 3rd person plural pronoun mwa for forming all noun plurals. In Tera (II.A. 1), all plurals, apart from a few suppletive forms, use an invariant plural suffix -kii. Still, from a typological/genetic point of view, it is probably fair to say that the Chadic norm is to have elaborate plural marking systems and that the sparse systems represent historical loss and individual modifications. Surprisingly, comparative Chadic plural formation has not received a comprehensive, systematic treatment comparable to that provided for Cushitic by Zaborski (1986). There are only two notable comparative Chadic studies devoted to the subject: Wolff (1977a) and Frajzyngier (1977a). These are both interesting papers that emphasize the similarities between nominal and verbal plurality, but, because of limitations of size and scope, neither presents the full array of relevant facts. In what follows, I present detailed data from the entire family to support the reconstruction of specific plural morphemes for ProtoChadic. The data are cited under eleven different formations, some of which can be reconstructed for PC, with greater or lesser certainty, some of which represent widespread forms that probably are not reconstructible formatives. As an organizing principle, these eleven formations can be grouped into four categories: (i) consonantal suffixes (§ 2.1 - § 2.3), i.e. suffixes containing a consonant, (ii) vocalic suffixes (§ 2.4 - § 2.7),1

16

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

(iii) internal vowels, i.e. vocalic infixation or apophony (§ 2.8), and (iv) reduplication/gemination (§ 2.9 - § 2.11).

2.1. *-aki This is the most widespread, best attested Chadic plural suffix. It is found in all four branches of the family. Not only is the velar consonant clearly represented, but so is the final high vowel. Present-day reflexes of this suffix either contain a high vowel (usually a high front vowel), or else provide indirect evidence of a former high vowel by means of influence on the erstwhile velar consonant. The presumed reflexes of this suffix almost never occur with a low final vowel.

2.1.1. West 2.1.1.1. In Hausa (I.A.1), reflexes of the *-aki plural suffix appear in a small number of basic words, sometimes as -ftkii, sometimes as -&kuu or -ftikuu (in either case with an associated Lo-Hi tone pattern). In some cases the suffix is part of a form in which the final two syllables are reduplicated. (1) [H]

farm goonaa/g5on&kii; day raanaa/r&an&ikuu; naming ceremony suunaa/suun&nnakii (< *suun&knakii)

Among its many plural formatives, Hausa also has a suffix -ukda. What connection this has to the proto-form *-aki, if any, is not clear.

2.1.1.2. In languages of the Ron group (I.A.4), where this suffix shows up without a final vowel, the original /i/ is generally reflected in palatalization of the original velar consonant. (2)

[Ku] [R/D] [R/B] [Sha] [Fy]

door wiik/wuk6gy; fish kirif/kirifegy; name asim/asim£gy star nj6rfet/nj6rfet£sh; bow nd&ar/nd&arash knife b&k&m/b&k&mash; basket c£t/c£tash elephant did&m/did&m^sh; antelope ye?/ye?esh; pot ?aldi)/?alag&h; hut ndurum/ndurumah tortoise kur/kurdsh; back m6s/mas6s ( i rather than the opposite, 18 the Musey plurals with -i can be taken as additional evidence for the presence of *-ai in the Masa branch.

2.6. -e Final -e as a plural marker appears scattered throughout Chadic, occurring in the three major branches of the family. Nevertheless, I would hesitate to reconstruct it as another vocalic plural marker in addition to *-i and *-ai. In the first place, it is doubtful whether Proto-Chadic had */e/ as a distinct phoneme. Chadic vowels have not yet been reconstructed; but from what we know, the proto-language could very easily have had only three monophthongal vowels: /i/, /a/, /u/ and their long counterparts. 19 In the second place, the languages that have the -e plural generally do not have it in contrast with -ai or -i plurals. The best working assumption, then, is that final -e plurals are due to secondary developments of a phonological nature occurring independently at shallow historical levels. In some cases - Bole, Bidiya, and Mubi, for instance - the -e plurals look to be derived from *-i by a lowering rule. In Kotoko, the partial synchronic complementarity between -e and -ai plurals suggests a historical relationship. In the case of other languages, it is not clear at this point whether the -e represents a monophthongized reflex of *-ai or a lowered reflex of *-i. In what follows, I simply present examples of -e plurals for documentation purposes without trying to determine the correct etymology in each individual case.

2.6.1. West: Bole (76)

[B]

(IA.2)

farm k&ori/koore; younger sibling m61-/m6Ilfe; rooster gaajfc/gajje

2.6.2. Biu-Mandara: Bachama (IIA.8) and Kotoko (77)

[Be]

(II.B.l)

rope samwa/samwe; Bachama person Bwaara/bwaare; room vun-ey/vcjnye

36

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

(78) [Ko] foot sk&l/sk&lfe; hut ftg/farfe20; horn l&g&g/l&g&rfe; egg ¿nsho/fcnshe; arrow daazhi/daazhiyfe; blind person m&apu/ mfeapuwfe; finger n&a/nkawe

2.6.3. East: Jegu, Bidiya, and Mubi (all III.B.1) (79)

[J] arm p6to/p6tfe; tree eto/fete (cf. [D] fet6/atai) [Bi]21 muscle burriasft/burdasfc; neighbor b&kd/b6kfe; elephant mugu/muguwfe (with epenthetic /w/) [Mb] uncle siq/sene; house gir/gar6; skin mugur/mokkurt; water [+pl] ime

2.7. -au /-aw Unlike the case with the diphthong *-ai, the evidence here is too weak to justify reconstructing -au or -aw as a PC plural ending. Although plural forms with final -au or -o do occur on the surface in a number of scattered languages, it is unlikely that most of them are cognate. Plurals with -au are thus similar to those with -e, i.e. the forms in each language have to be analyzed with respect to specific synchronic and shallow historical processes. In the examples, the transcription of the diphthong as -au or -aw is in accordance with the original sources.

2.7.1. West 2.7.1.1. In Hausa (I.A.1), this suffix occurs in only a couple of words. (80)

[H] arrow kibiy&a/kibau; dog karee/k&fnau = karnuk&a

2.7.1.2. Karekare (I.A.2) has a number of plurals with -iyau or -iyo(o), depending on the source. It is not the most common plural form, but it is not rare. It often occurs with reduplication. (81)

[Kk] dog &d&/ddandiy5o; mortar tuum&/tuumamiy&u

2.7.1.3. In Miya (I.B.2), -aw is the most productive plural form, usually occurring with reduplication. If this suffix is cognate with the plural marker -wi in Warji, which, given the closeness of the their relationship seems reasonable, and if the Warji suffix is indeed a reflex of *-ki, as I have postulated, then it follows that the phonetic similarity between

Noun plurals

37

Miya -aw and any putative form *-au is fortuitous and of no historical significance. (82)

[My] knee wurum/wurumdm&w; cap kiinkul/kunkuMl&w; farm shim/shimAm&w; tree dam/dam&mdw

2.7.1.4. Ngizim (I.B.I) has a few plurals with -au. Since the examples are limited to basic words and irregular forms, they suggest a considerable time depth for this formation, i.e. they cannot be lightly disregarded. (83)

[N] spear qgàs/qgàsau; friend mânga/mangiitau; boy maayim/ mâamau; goat aakù/gàrau

2.7.2. East 2.7.2.1. In Kera (III.A.3), -aw is the most common plural formative. Some plural nouns also occur with a prefix that is sensitive to gender and number. As suggested in § 2.1.3.2, this suffix, like the phonetically identical suffix in Miya (I.B.2), is probably a reflex of the *-aki protoform, the weakening of the original /k/ having taken place independently in the two cases. (84)

[Ke]

knife târtà/ka-târtâw; bowl pâkà/ka-pkâw; hide, skin gôlôm/gà-glàw; antelope àsàrâ/k-àsràw

2.7.2.2. Tumak (III.A.1) has -aw as a plural marker in just a handful of words: (85)

[Tm] foot dàgâl/dàglàw; ram gùbli/gùblàw; orphan kùnày/ kùnayàw; girl dàyèr/dàyrâw

2.7.2.3. Two nouns in Bidiya (III.B.l) are recorded with -aw as the plural marker. (86)

[Bi] man miidô/midaw; natural water hole kubô/kubàw

2.8. *Intemal -aThis is one of the more striking morphological features - observed very early - that scholars have used in connecting Chadic with Afroasiatic; see Meinhof (1912), Klingenheben (1930/31), Lukas (1937/38), Greenberg

38

Nominal

and verbal plurality in Chadic

(1955), and Jungraithmayr (1968a). It is perhaps because the shared apophonic processes have appeared so striking that even normally careful and conservative scholars have allowed themselves to jump to conclusions about the supposed historical linguistic significance of surface similarities observed across enormous distances in time and space. As stressed by Kuryjowicz (1958), an essential first step in studying morphological apophony is to determine whether apophony really exists or whether the observed alternations cannot be reduced (historically or synchronically) to phonologically conditioned rules. Methodologically, this initial skepticism may not be waived. It is only after the morphophonological system of a language has been subjected to close scrutiny that one is really entitled to conclude (or at least hypothesize) that its putative apophony is of internal grammatical significance and thus warrants comparison externally with other languages. Although the term "internal-a" is used in describing various languages as if it referred to a single phenomenon, it actually covers two different processes: infixation and apophony/ablaut. In the one case we are dealing with the insertion of a vowel (/a/ or /aa/) inside a stem (e.g. Hausa gulbii/gul&abee 'stream'), and in the other we are dealing with vowel replacement, as in English 'goose/geese'. In Chadic these may historically reflect one and the same process - for purposes of the presentation here I shall lump them together, as is usually done - but the distinction between infixation and apophony needs to be investigated more fully before one can determinine its true significance.

2.8.1. West

2.8.1.1. Hausa (I.A.1) has a number of plural formations involving the insertion of -a-. Analytically speaking, however, what appears as an internal -a- is probably better viewed as an -aCV suffix where the C 3 of the root occupies the place of the suffixal consonant. (The suffixal consonant can be either fully specified or a copy of the stem-final consonant.) In other words, plurals that look like internal formations (and in fact may be so in a strict synchronic sense) probably derive historically from external suffixes.22 This analysis applies not only to internal-a plurals but to other internal vowel plurals as well. (87)

[H] a. b. c.

stream gulbii/gul&abee; bowl kaskoo/kas&akee; cf. fish kiifli/kiif&ayee; place wurii/wurkaree tongue harshfee/har&asaa; saddle sirdii/sir&adaa; cf. ring zoob6e/z6bbaa (< *zoob&baa) horse dookii (< *dawkii)/dawaakii; sheep tunkiyaa/ tumaakii; bow string tsarkiyaa/tsarookii; cf. melon gunaa/gunoonii 23 ; (cf. also 'axe' g&atarii/gaatur&a with 'gown' riigaa/riigun&a)

Noun plurals

39

2.8.1.2. Kanakuru (I.A.2) has one example only of what looks like internal-a apophony. This occurs along with an overt suffix. Since it is a single isolated example, its historical significance has to be suspect. (88)

[K] brother, sister mol, mol6/mwal&n

2.8.1.3. Internal-a plurals are very common in the Ron group (I.A.4). The -a-, which is usually infixal rather than replacive, tends to have its own tone. (89)

[R/B] [R/D] [Ku] [Fy] [Sha]

horn shòm/shwàm; ear mwal/mwaól; gorilla kàtirj/katyàq leg sàktìr/sakwààr; slave móor/mwàar; fly kukwish/ kukwyàsh hen kòd/kwààd; crocodile hàràrj/hàràaq; fingernail abilik/abflflàk head hóy/hwàày; hole furj/fuf^flqi; home bor/bwar head hay/haayi; hen matél/matyfil

2.8.1.4. Ngizim (I.B.I) has a small number of plurals containing an internal /a/. Where it occurs it is usually accompanied by reduplication or suffixation. Similar plurals are also found in Bade. (Examples are from Gashua Bade.) (90)

[N] bull kw&m/kw&amin; log tamtam/tamtaamin; male gamsak/ g&ms&k; rooster g&skam/g&sk&amin; tall gazbar/gazb&arin; musk shrew gdmzaWal&y

Interestingly, as noted by Wolff (1977:218) Ron/Daffo has "plural verb stems" formed by internal-a in addition to habitative stems. It is far from clear what the historical connection is between these two sets of stems. (For typographical convenience, I am transcribing the Mid-Hi rising tone as &.) (45)

[R/D] draw water Bil/By&l; close (a hole) ndus/ndw&s; throw ragot/ ragwfit

Miya (I.B.2) has internal pluractionals with two phonological classes of verbs. CaCCa verbs replace the stem vowel by /a/; CaC(a) verbs insert an /a/ (or lengthen the stem internal /a/, however one wants to look at it.) Both verb classes add a suffix -a in addition to the internal changes. 3.4.1.3.

(46)

[My] give birth varka/vkrkd; send kftfa/kftafft

Saya (I.B.3) pluractionals are formed from CVC verbs by internal vowel lengthening.

3.4.1.4.

(47)

[Sa] tie n&t/n&at; weave kap/kssp; call cim/ciim; throw kur/kuur; insult vfcr/vydar; say kdn/kwdan

There are two alternative analyses for the Saya forms. One is that the underlying pluractional process is insertion of /a/, which is still evident in forms such as vyiar, but which elsewhere completely assimilates to the preceding vowel, e.g. kuur < *kudr. The other explanation, which I consider the more likely, is that the pluractional process in all cases

73

74

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

is simply lengthening, but that in the case of the mid vowels it is disguised because of a low-level phonological rule changing /y/ and /w/ plus short /a/ to /e/ and /o/ respectively, i.e. vfcr < *vy&r and k6n < •kwftn, which, when lengthened, naturally give the attested forms vydar and kwAan. Given this latter analysis, kwaan, for instance, is no more (or no less) an example of an internal-a pluractional than is kaap or kuur.

3.4.2. Biu-Mandara 3.4.2.1. In Ga'anda (II.A.1) the change of an internal vowel to /a/ in pluractionals is always accompanied by preflxal reduplication. The only stem vowel that undergoes replacement is /a/. Verbs with underlying /a/ show no change - the replacement would operate vacuously - and the few monoverbs that occur with the vowel /e/ undergo reduplication but retain the stem vowel unchanged. (48)

[G] break fahl/fafahl (or fafal); die mar/mamat; hit hlaf/hlahlaf; kill Bahl/baBal; be seated das/dadas; swell xahl/xaxahl; bite ka/kaka; cf. shoot ce/cace; slaughter hle/hlahle.

3.4.2.2. Lamang (II.A.4) has two degrees of pluractional formation (Wolff 1977:208ff, 1983:107ff).19 The first, illustrated here, is indicated by vocalic apophony. The second, which has a higher degree of intensity or distributiveness, is indicated by partial reduplication of the firstdegree pluractional stem (see § 3.3.2.2.1). The apophonic construction is formed by inserting /a/ in place of the lexical "zero" vowel (which appears as either [a] or []). If the verb base contains more than one zero vowel, as in the word hlagala 'stab', /a/ will replace all of them. A verb without a lexical zero vowel can form pluractionals only by the reduplicative method. (49) [L] take k(a)la/kala; be bad b(a)dza/badza; be black qg(a)ra/qgara; roast f(a)sa [rare]/fasa; laugh ghambasa/ghambasa; stab hlagala/ hlagala

3.4.2.3. Podoko (II.A.4) verbs with a stem internal schwa replace the schwa by /a/. Some of these verbs require the pluractional suffix -aw as well; with others, the suffix is optional. (50)

[Pd] buy sakw/sakw; sell val/val(aw); receive filah/fildh(aw)

Chadic pluractionals Zulgo (II.A.4) verbs with an internal schwa replace the schwa (or schwas) by /-a-/ and add a final -a. Other verbs use a suffix -(a)ya.

3.4.2.4.

(51)

[Z] eat zam/zama; buy sakam/sakama

Mandara (II.A.4), like its closely related sister languages, forms pluractionals by insertion of /a/ in place of schwa or a zero vowel. It is not clear from the available information how general this process is.

3.4.2.5.

(52) [Mn] die mts£/m&tssi

Bachama (II.A.8) derives pluractional verbs by a regular system of vowel lowering. Verbs that already have /a/ or /aa/ in the stem do not have corresponding pluractionals. The lowering applies to basic verbs and also to derived stems containing an extension. An internal /a/ cannot be recovered synchronically, but it can be postulated historically as the underlying source of the vowel lowering. 3.4.2.6.

(53) [Be] thatch pir/py6er; thatch there piird/pydard; chew tuula/t661a; go and chew tuul6/tw&al£; die mbtira/inbara; extinguish fire there mbura/mbara

3.4.2.7. Gude (II.A.8) forms pluractionals regularly by internal vowel lengthening. Monosyllabic verbs are doubled to have a suitable disyllabic base on which the lengthening can apply. Irregular constructions with a-initial verbs are a good indication of the antiquity of this process in Gude. (54)

[Gd] stab dza6a/dzaa6a; die mata/maata; drive saba/saaba; cut la (-* *Ia!a )/laala; grind ada/haada; catch asa/kaasa (cf. PC •kasa)

According to Hoskison (1983), the synchronically active morphological process is lengthening while the vowel lowering is phonologically conditioned by the stem-final /a/. If he is correct, then the long /aa/ one sees in saaba, for example, would be from *saaba and thus would not be a direct manifestation of the internal-a formative - although it could still be etymologically related in a circuitous way. Another possibility, viewing the matter diachronically, is that the /aa/ in saaba, laala, etc., does reflect an original /aa/ infix and that the /aa/ one sees in maata, etc., is due to phonologically conditioned raising, i.e. mata/* maata -» maata.

75

76

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

3.4.3. East 3.4.3.1. Polysyllabic stems in Bidiya (III.B.l) form pluractionals by lengthening the last vowel. (Monosyllabic stems use a suffix -aw.) (55) [Bi] eat dry food bdk&l/bdk&al; boil grain regfcm/reg6em; lisp ?oyook61/?oy6ok6ol; push forward sigiig&y/sigiig&ay; travel m£rtaw/mart&aw; puff up gerdes/gerdees

3.4.3.2. The Dangaleat (III.B.l) "durative-repetitive" formation is similar to that in Bidiya. "Long" stems, i.e. those that are typically CVCVC-, replace the vowel between C 2 and C 3 by /aa/. 20 (56)

[D] make fire sibir-/sibaar-; eat soft food bak&l-/bakaal-; cut dukum-/ndon: Hodder and Stoughton. Kuryiowicz, J. (1958). "Esquisse d'une théorie de l'apophonie en sémitique", BSL 53(1):138. . (1976). "The plural in Semitic", in Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Gremberg on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Vol I, ed. by A. Juilland, pp. 95-102. Stanford: Anma Libri. Larson, James L. (1971). Reason and Experience. The Representation of Natural Order in the Work of Carl von Linne. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Üben, William R. (1977). "Parsing Hausa plurals", in PCL, pp. 89-105. Lenssen, Tilman. (1984). Studien zum Verb im Kwang (Tschad). (AM Special Issue 8). Marburg. Ixslau, Wolf. (1967). "Hypothesis on a Proto-Semitic marker of the imperfect in Gurage" Journal of the Near Eastern Society 26:121-25. Lienhard, Ruth, and Ursula Wiesemann. (1986). "La modalité du verbe daba" JALL 8:4163. Lukas, Johannes. (1936). Die Logone-Sprache im zentralen Sudan. Leipzig. . (1937). Zentralsudanische Studien. Hamburg. . (1937/38). "Der hamitische Gehalt der tschadohamitischen Sprachen", ZES 28:28699. . (1939). Die Sprache der Buduma im zentralen Sudan. Leipzig. . (1941). Deutsche Quellen zur Sprache der Musgu in Kamerun. (Beihefte zur ZES, 24). Berlin.

Bibliography

159

. (1968). "Nunation in afrikanischen Sprachen", Anthropos 63:97-114. _. (1970). Studien zur Sprache der Gisiga (Nordkamerun). (Afrikanistische Forschungen, 4). Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin. . (1970/71). "Die Personalia und das primäre Verb im Bolanci (Nordnigerien)", Aull 54:237-86. . (1971). "Über das erweiterte Verb im Bolanci (Nordnigerien)" in SCI, pp. 1-14. . (1977). "Tschadische Studien I: Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Mukulu", AuU 60:1-58, 192-229. Lukas, Renate. (1967/68). "Das Nomen im Bade (Nordnigerien)", AuÜ 51:91-116, 198-224. Mayerthaler, W. (1980). "Ikonismus in der morphologie", Zeitschrift fir Semiotik 2:19-37. McKinney, Carol. (1979). "Plural verb roots in Kaje", AuÜ 62:107-117. Meinhof, Carl. (1912). Die Sprachen der Hamiten. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen. Meyer-Bahlburg, Hilke. (1972). Studien zur Morphologie und Syntax des Musgu. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Mirt, Heide. (1970/71). "Zur Morphologie des Verbalcomplexes im Mandara" Aul1 54:176. Moravcsik, Edith A. (1978). "Reduplicative constructions", in Universals of Human Language 3: Word Structure, ed. by J. H. Greenberg, pp. 297-334. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mouchel, Jean. (1950). "Vocabulaire comparatifs de quinze parlers du Nord-Cameroun" BSEC no. 29/30, pp. 5-74. . (1953). "Vocabulaires comparatifs de sept parlers du Nord-Cameroun", BSEC no. 41/42, pp. 136-206. . (1966). Le parler daba. (Recherches et Études Camerounaises, 10). Yaoundé. Mouchet, Jean, and Ernest Erickson. (1951). "Esquisse grammaticale du masana" BSEC no 33/34, pp. 67-76. Newman, Paul. (1970). A Grammar of Tera: Transformational Syntax and Texts. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 57). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. . (1972). "Syllable weight as a phonological variable", SAL 3:301-323. . (1974). The Kanakuru Language. (West African Language Monograph Series, 9.) l.eeds: Institute of Modern English Language Studies. _. (1975a). "Proto-Chadic verb classes" Folia Orientalia [Krakow] 16:65-84. . (1975b). "The non-correlation of tone and vowel height in Hausa", SAL 6:207-213. . (1977a). "Chadic classification and reconstructions", AAL 5(l):l-42. . (1977b). "The formation of the imperfective verb stem in Chadic" AuÜ 60:178-92. . (1979a). "Explaining Hausa feminines", SAL 10:197-226. . (1979b). "The historical development of medial /ee/ and /oo/ in Hausa", JALL 1:17388.

(1980). The Classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Leiden: Universitaire Pers. . (1981). "Syllable weight and tone", Linguistic Inquiry 12:670-73. . (1984a). "Ethnonyms in Hausa", SAL 15:301-320. . (1984b). "Methodological pitfalls in Chadic-Afroasiatic comparisons", in CPAL, pp. 161-66.

. (1986a). "Tone and affixation in Hausa", SAL 17:249-67. . (1986b). "Reduplicated nouns in Hausa", JALL 8:115-32. . (1987). "Hausa and the Chadic languages" in The World's Major Languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie, pp. 705-723 [chap. 35], London: Croom Helm. . (1989). "The historical change from suffixal to préfixai reduplication in Hausa pluractional verbs" JALL 11:1-8. . nd.a. "Unpublished field notes on Kotoko". . nd.b. "Unpublished field notes on Warji". . nd.c. "Gemination and vowel length in Chadic", Unpublished paper, UCLA and Indiana University [1981-82]. Newman, Paul, and Roxana Ma. (1966). «Comparative Chadic: phonology and lexicon", JAL 5:218-51. Newman, Paul, and Roxana Ma Newman. (1977). Modem Hausa-English Dictionary. Ibadan & Zaria: University Press Nigeria.

16Ü

Nominal

and verbal plurality

in

Chadic

Newman, Paul, and Russell G. Schuh. (1974). "The Hausa aspect system", AAL l(l):l-39. Newman, Roxana Ma. (1971). A Case Grammar of Ga'anda. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. . (1988). "Augmentative adjectives in Hausa" in Studies in Hausa Language and Linguistics. In Honour of F. W. Parsons , ed. by Graham Furniss and Philip J. Jaggar, pp. 99-116. London: Kegan Paul International. Ohala, John J. (1983). "The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints" in The Production of Speech, ed. by Peter F. MacNeilage, pp. 189-216. New York: Academic Press. Palmer, F. R. (1977). "Review of The Verb in Cushitic by A. Zaborski", BSOAS 40:198-202 Parsons, F. W. (1955). "Abstract nouns of sensory quality and their derivatives in Hausa", in AS, pp. 373-404. . (1960-61-63). "The operation of gender in Hausa", ALS 1:117-36, 2:100-124, 4:166207. . (1970). "Is Hausa really a Chadic language? Some problems of comparative phonology", ALS 11:272-88. (1975). "Hausa and Chadic", in Hamilo-Semitica, ed. by James and Theodora Bynon, pp. 421-55. The Hague: Mouton. _. (1981). Writings on Hausa Grammar. 2 vols., ed. by G. L. Furniss. Ann Arbor: Books on Demand, UMI. Pawlak, Nina. (1975). "The semantic problems of 'intensive' forms in Hausa verbs" Africana Bulletin [Warsaw] 23:139-49. Penchoen, Thomas G. (1973). Tamazigfit of the Ayt Ndhir. (Afroasiatic Dialects, 1.) Los Angeles: Undena Publications Pilszczikowa-Chodak, N. (1972). "Tone-vowel height correlation and tone assignment in the patterns of verb and noun plurals in Hausa", SAL 3:399-421. . (1979). "Noun pluralization in Hausa", Études linguistiques [Niamey] 1:13-36. Rössing, Melvin O. (1978). Mafa-Mada: A Comparative Study of Chadic Languages in North Cameroun. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Ryder, Stuart A. (1974). The D-Stem in Western Semitic. The Hague: Mouton. Sachnine, Michka. (1982). Le lamé. (Langues et cultures africaines, 11). Paris: SELAF. Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co. Sapir, E., and M. Swadesh. (1946). "American Indian grammatical categories" Word 2:103112. Schneeberg, Nan. (1974). Sayanci Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Schuh, Maxine. nd. "Karekare vocabulary". Unpublished ms. Schuh, Russell G. (1972a). Aspects of Ngizim Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. . (1972b). "Rule inversion in Chadic", SAL 3:379-97. . (1973/74). "Nunation and gender in Bade", AuÜ 58:106-119. . (1976). "The history of Hausa nasals" in SAL Supplement 6, pp. 221-32. (1977a). "Bade/Ngizim determiner system", AAL 4(3):101-174. (1977b). "West Chadic verb classes", in PCL, pp. 143-66. . (1978a). Bole-Tangale Languages of the Bauchi Area (Northern Nigeria). (MSAA, 13). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. . (1978b). "Bade/Ngizim vowels and syllable structure", SAL 9:247-83. . (1981). A Dictionary of Ngizim. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 99.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. . (1983). "The evolution of determiners in Chadic", in SCAL, pp. 157-210. . (1984). "West Chadic vowel correspondences" in CPAL, pp. 167-223. . (1989). "Long vowels and diphthongs in Miya and Hausa" in Current Approaches to African Linguistics (vol. 5), ed. by P. Newman and R. D. Botne, pp. 35-44. (Publications in African Languages and Linguistics, 8 ). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. . in press. "Re-employment of grammatical morphemes in Chadic: implications for language history", in Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodolog, ed. by Philip Baldi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. . nd.a. "The Bolanci verbal system", ms., UCLA & Ahmadu Bello University [1983]. . nd.b. "Gender and number in Miya", unpublished ms., UCLA. . nd.c. "Western Bade pluractional verbs", unpublished ms., UCLA. . nd.d. "Données de la langue kada (gidar)", unpublished ms., UCLA.

Bibliography

161

Schumann, Theda. (1983). "Gender markers in Masa", in SCAL, pp. 429-39. Shimizu, Kiyoshi. (1975). Boghom and Zaar: Vocabulary and Notes. Kano: CSNL. Shryock, Aaron, nd. "Comparative notes on the Masa group" unpublished ms., UCLA Skinner, Margaret G. (1977). "Gender in Pa'a", in PCL, pp. 167-74. . (1979). Aspects of Pa'anci Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Skinner, Neil. (1975). "The Hausa genitive morpheme as an exponent of gender: a query", in Hamito-Semitica, ed. by James and Theodora Bynon, pp. 389-94. The Hague: Mouton. . (1977). "North Bauchi Chadic languages: common roots", AAL 4(l):l-49. Smith, David M. (1969). The Kapsitd Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Steever, Sanford B. (1987). "The roots of the plural action verb in the Dravidian languages", J AOS 107:581-604. Toumeux, Henry. (1983). "Affixes d'objet et morphologie verbal en "munjuk (musgu)" LA CITO-Informations 14:98-106. . (1978). Le mulwi or vulum de Mogroum (Tchad). Phonologie - Éléments de grammaire. (Bibliothèque de la SELAF, 68-69-70.) Paris: SELAF. . (1987). "Peut-on parler d'extension verbale en munjuk?" in Études tchadiques: classes et extensions verbales, pp. 115-21. Paris: Geuthner. Tourneux, Henry, Christian Seignobos, and Francine Lafarge. (1986). Les Mbara et leur langue (Tchad). Paris: SELAF. Tubiana, Joseph. (1982). "D'un critère stylistique pour la classification chamito-sémitique" Africa [Rome] 37:97-105. Weibegué, Christophe, and Pierre Palayer. (1982). Lexique lélé-français. Sarh: Centre d'Etudes Linguistiques. Wenie-Lukas, Renale. (1973/74). "Zur sprachlichen Stellung des Bana (Mandara-Gebirge, Nordwestkamerun), AuÜ 57:1-15. Westermann, Dietrich, and M. A. Bryan. (1952). The Languages of West Africa. (Handbook of African Languages, Part 2.) London: Oxford University Press for the International African Institute. Williams, Charles Kinston CKemp"). (1989). Chadic Historical Syntax: Reconstructing Word Order in Proto-Chadic. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Winston, F. D. D. (1970). "Some Bantu-like features of Efik structure", ALS 11:417-35. Wolff, Ekkehard.(1977a). "Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) verb base formations", in PCL, pp.(l 99-233). . (1977b). "Verb bases and stems in Migama", AuÜ 60:163-77. . (1979). "Grammatical categories of verb stems and the marking of mood, aktionsart, and aspect in Chadic", AAL 6(5):161-208. . (1981). "Vocalization patterns, prosodies, and Chadic reconstructions", in SAL Supplement 8, pp. 144-48. . (1983). A Grammar of the Lamang Language. (Afrikanistische Forschungen, 10.) Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin. . (1985). "The verbal aspect system in Zime-Mesme" AuÜ 68:1-22. . (1987). "Consonant-tone interference and current theories on verbal aspect systems in Chadic languages", in Proceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. by H. Jungraithmayr and W. W. Müller, pp. 475-96. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 44.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wolff, Ekkehard, and Ludwig Gerhardt. (1977). "Interferenzen zwischen Henue-Kongo- und Tschad-Sprachen", ZDMG Supplement 3, pp. 1518-43. Wolff, Ekkehard, and Hilke Meyer-Bahlburg. (1979). "Morphologie und Semantik der erweiterten Verbalstämme in der Sprache der Afusare (Zarek)", AuÜ 62:1-38. Woodbury, Hanni. (1975). "Onondaga noun-incorporation: some notes on the interdependence of syntax and semantics", International Journal of American Linguistics 41:10-20. Zaborski, Andrzej.(1975). The Verb in Cushitic. (Studies in Hamito-Semitic I.) Warsaw: Panstwowe Wyd. Naukowe. . (1982). "Review of SUGIA, vol. 1", AAL 8(4):206-210. . (1986). The Morphology of Nominal Plural in the Cushitic Languages. (Beiträge zur Afrikanistik, 28.) Vienna: Afro-Pub.

162

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

Zarruk, Rabi'u Mohammad, nd. Aikatau a Nahawun Hausa. [Verbs in Hausa grammar]. Mimeographed, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. Zyhlarz, E. (1932/33). "Ursprung und Sprachcharakter des Altagyptischen", ZES 23:25-45, 81-110, 161-94, 241-54.

Index of Language Names

Afar 118 Afroasialic 7, 37, 51, 58, 63, 69, 72, 118, 120, 131, 133-35, 147, 149, 152, 155 Angas 5, 15, 58, 72 Arabic 32 Awngi 155 Bachama 35, 54-55, 72, 75, 126 Bade 5, 15, 17-18, 23-24, 26, 39, 43, 60-61, 64, 66, 122-23, 128, 131, 148, 155 Bana 19, 30, 44 Bele 29, 47, 107, 110-11 Bidaya 11, 20, 31, 34-37, 40-41, 44, 55, 76-79, 116-17, 130, 149 Birom 54 Bole 16-17, 29, 35, 47, 55, 59, 69-70, 80-82, 107, 110, 122-23, 127-28, 152 Buduma 34, 130 Bura 55, 154 Chibak 24, 27, 29 Chip 81 Cushilic 50, 118, 131, 135, 154 Daba 19, 55, 68, 79, 111-12, 118 Dangaleat 15, 20, 25, 30, 34, 40, 48, 55, 76, 79-80, 130, 148 Dghwede 55, 67, 77, 82, 127 Egyptian 147 Kyer 16, 23, 28-29, 39, 45, 57 Ga'anda 18, 55, 61, 74, 125-26 Galambu 22 Gera 22, 29, 109-10, 128 Geruma 47, 109 Gidar 5, 19, 24, 26-27, 30, 49, 115-16, 122, 155 Gisiga 33, 113, 118, 124, 127 Gude 9, 19, 24, 33, 55, 62, 75, 126 Guruntum 121 Hausa 6-7, 10, 12-13, 15-16, 21-22, 26, 28, 32, 36, 38, 41-42, 47-48, 55, 60, 64, 66-68, 71, 89-102, 107, 121, 128-29, 133, 147-49, 152-55 Hebrew 119 Higi 18 Hurza 127 Jegu 20, 25, 30, 36, 40 Kaje 54 Kanakuru 8-9, 13, 15, 17, 22-23, 39, 47, 56, 70, 122-24, 150, 155 Kapsiki 19, 30, 56, 62 Karekare 17, 22, 33, 36, 42, 45-46, 108 Kera 12, 20, 25, 37, 56, 63-64, 81, 147 Kilba 27 Kirfi 22, 47, 109, 124, 150 Kotoko 5, 9-10, 12, 15, 24, 27, 34-36, 39-40, 147, 149 Kui 53 Kulere 16, 39, 43, 45, 73, 78, 123 Kwang 63, 81-82 I -amang 56, 67-68, 74, 122

164

Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic

Lele 56, 79 I^ogone 40, 46, 130, 149 Mada 27, 127 Mandara 56, 68, 75, 114, 126-27, 149, 155 Margi 24, 27, 29, 56, 61, 68, 126 Masa 5, 10, 26, 31, 34-35, 122-23, 133, 147-48 Mbara 44, 124-25 Mesme 21 Migama 28, 31, 41, 45, 48, 56, 71, 130 Miya 36-37, 43, 56, 61, 73, 78, 148 Mofu-Gudur 33, 57, 62, 113-14, 124, 127 Mubi 11, 27, 30, 35-36, 41, 45, 48, 71, 76, 107, 130 Mukulu 21, 25, 27, 41, 48-49, 63, 71-72, 83, 122 Musey 21, 26, 31, 35 Musgu 5, 19, 33, 57, 62-63, 115, 124, 147 Muyang 46 Ngamo 108 Ngizim 17-18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 33, 37, 39, 43, 46, 49, 60, 66, 102-7, 128, 131, 153, 155 Ouldeme 27, 127 Pa'a 23, 29, 57, 61, 133 Pero 15, 23, 47, 57-58, 64-65, 69, 80, 122, 150 Podoko 19, 30, 39, 57, 74, 78 Rendille 118-19 Ron 12, 16, 32, 39, 43, 45, 57, 60, 73, 78, 150 Saya 4, 17, 58, 72-74, 129, 150 Sha 11, 16, 28-29, 32, 39, 43, 57, 60, 65, 129-30, 155 Sokoro 117, 124 Sorarai 25, 34, 58, 82 South Arabian 119 Sura 58, 72, 81, 151, 155 Tamazight 83, 119, 152 Tangale 23, 58-59, 77, 122 Tera 15, 18, 112-13, 118, 125, 148 Tobanga 25 , 63-64, 82 Tumak 20, 25, 37, 44 Warji 5, 7-8, 17, 36, 128, 155 Zulgo 58, 75, 79, 127