Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Dolgopolsky - On Etymology of Pronouns and Classification of The Chadic Languages

    Caricato da

    Allan Bomhard
    103 visualizzazioni20 pagine
    Discussion of Chadic pronouns.

    Titolo originale

    Dolgopolsky - On Etymology of Pronouns and Classification of the Chadic Languages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Discussion of Chadic pronouns.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    103 visualizzazioni20 pagine

    Dolgopolsky - On Etymology of Pronouns and Classification of The Chadic Languages

    Caricato da

    Allan Bomhard
    Discussion of Chadic pronouns.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 20
    ON ETYMOLOGY OF PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHADIC LANGUAGES ARON B. DOLGOPOLSKY University of Haifa The purpose of the present study is to find etymologies of Chadic Personal pronouns and pronominal affixes of the 1st and 2nd persons, i.e. to identify them with words and morphemes of related languages. ‘An additional purpose is to try to find a morphological criterion (one of many possible criteria) for genetic classification of the Chadic Tanguages . It must be borne in mind that not all shared features are valid as criteria for singling out several languages as a branch of a linguistic family. To be valid as a criterion for subclassification, a shared fea- ture must be (1) an innovation, and (2) an unrepeatable one. An innova tion rather than an archaism, since archaisms shared by several sister- languages go back directly to the parent language of the whole family and do not imply any intermediate proto-language of a branch: preserva- tion of the Proto-Semitic case-endings in Arabic, Ugaritic, and Akkadian does not imply the existence of an Arabic-Ugaritic-Akkadian branch of Semitic. The feature must be untepeatable (practically unique), i. e. not liable to appear in different languages independently. Therefore structural features are not valid: parallel structural innovations in related languages are a wide-spread phenomenon. The fact that Greek, Modern Teutonic and Romance languages, Bulgarian, Albanian and Armenian have developped a definite article does not single them out as a special = ARON DOLGOPOLSKY branch of Indo-European. Phonetic innovations, as a rule, do not count either. There is no A-branch of Slavic (Czech, Slovak, Southern Russ- ian, Belorussian, Ukrainian with *g > A) and no 2-branch of Semitic (Akkadian, Hebrew, Phoenician and Ethiopian with *s > 2), and the tra- ditional centumersatam-classification of the Indo-European languages (*k > in some languages as against *kv > é, 3, 2 in other languages) does not hold water to-day. Perhaps, only very rare phonetic processes may be taken into account, e. g. lateralization *s > # (which occurs very seldom in the history of languages) has served as a valid criter- ion for singling out the Biu-Mandara branch of Chadic. It is obvious that the field in which we have the best chances of finding subclassi- fication criteria (i. e. shared unrepeatable innovations) is the stock of grammatical morphemes, mainly grammatical affixes and pronouns. Therefore in the present study I have chosen the personal pronouns as the basis for classification of the Chadic languages. Now, distinguishing between innovations and archaisms, crucial for subclassifying a family of languages, is not always possible, if one takes into account only the facts of the family in question. For in- stance, when investigating the 2 sg. f. markers *kc and *kim in the Chadic languages, we cannot decide on the basis of Chadic data only whether one of the markers or both are innovations or archaisms. To decide this, we need a deeper (and larger) framework, that of a mater- nal language family, of which the family in question is a branch. In our case this is the Semito-Hamitic (= Afroasiatic) family. Comparison of Chadic with the sister-languages shows that both *ké and *kum are archaisms (*ki has parallels in Semitic, Egyptian and Cushitic, *k%m corresponds to pronouns in Egyptian and Berber), hence neither can serve as a subclassification criterion. But even the Semito-Hamitic framework is not always sufficient for distinguishing between archaisms and innovations in Chadic. What can we do in dealing with the fields in which Chadic is the most archaic branch of Semito-Hamitic, e. g. in the case of inclusiver-exclusive opposition in 1 pl. pronouns, which has been lost in practically all other Semito-Hamitic languages? In these PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHADIC LANGUAGES and some other cases we must go deeper, to the framework of the macro- family of which Semito-Hamitic itself is a branch. Here I refer to the macro-family called Nostratic which, according to several scholars of the 20th century, embraces Semito-Hamitic together with Indo-European, Kartvelian, Elamic, Dravidian, and the Uralo-Altaic languages (see, i. a., Pedersen 1924, ch, VIII, Pedersen 1931,335-339, 111i8-Svityé 1971-1976, DoTgopolsky 1964 /= Dolgopolsky 1964, 1970/, DolgopoTsky 1972, Dolgopolsky rorrucomiNc, Collinder 1964, Collinder 1965, Menges 1960). As it will be seen further, the Nostratic framework opens the possibility of studying the origin of ancient morphemes which have been preserved in Chadic, but lost in other branches of Semito-Hamitic. Table A is a tentative survey of the personal pronouns and pro- nominal morphemes found in different branches of Chadic. It should be kept in mind that the asterisked forms at the bottom of every section (e. g., "Hanbole stock of ancient pronouns: SH *anZ, 7") are included merely to record the presence of certain morphemes and not to give their exact reconstruction. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLE A H Hausa Bn Bana Sr Sura Ms Musgu KF Kirti Bd Buduma Bl Bolanci J Jegu kr Kiir Mb Mubi Z Zul T Tumak Ln Lungi Ke Kera Bk Bokkos LI Laal Sh she Mk Mokitko KI Kulere ED Eastern Dangaleat Bd Bade ~ No Ngizim I Independent pronouns D Duvay S Subject pronouns Mr Margi Q Object pronouns Mn Mandara P Possessive pronouns ARON DOLGOPOLSKY Table A. Pers. pronouns & pronominal morphemes in Chadic. Part 1. 1 sing. 1 plur. inclusive | 1 pl. excl. 1 pl. t]|_sfofe| 1 {s{ ol] Pp 1 isto |e Hanbole: Honttheond | | ee iat | ml ona ji" ia i / Sr tay || ef] mitt na | Kf nda] || te riot | | sy lei~f || Vm Bl *ng | nl an Cart a [724 no | | | u Hanbole stock of ancient pronouns: SH *l?anlz, #7 *m-un (*m= 1 sg. + + wn pli), mV 1 pl. Southern Bauchi: a may | | min | | | mi | | mit_| I m | | of ancient pronouns: anu Lemwye kin | | a Il [xa] | [ac | ncn gyan nth | | | ov | [et it] bivant yigue vint | ne| | al gud | ‘Guan [ne] kindh Ron stock of ancient pronouns: SHsDglt, EL agin Ba, Ng J, Dw g) or derived from’ *g¥V PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHADIC LANGUAGES Table A. Part 2. 2 sing. m., 28g) 2 sing. f. 2 piur. I] s [Oo] [Spo uP I Ls [oye Hanbole: H kai | ro Ml ot ka lel, | la | . | ye ta | \ i be 1 ae wpe i betel | | KF Ka | ko Le || lier ie Li, | ko | bye tat BL kay | | ae | | | pot | ka | | ae | raoe | | kaa Ly, [a Lae | Lew Hanbole stock of ancient pronouns: SH *ka 2 s SH *k-un (*k- 2 sg. + + foun ) Southern Bauchi Ki gay | gam gun 2 Rt} ehut gar distinction ts Ln ké kat Southern Bauchi stock of ancient pronouns: SH tha SH *k0-m (*k- 2 sg] sH *k-un + tm fem.) Ron: Bk AE |g | c BE [ge] | [um eee | | | ee [eee ee Sh yah yely| | [ke tye | oars | [tele] Efe Ref Bs y | ytky | y ler | Lye | byah eet bay i Luk Ron stock of ancient pronouns: su tka SH thot | su_*k-w Bade-Ngizim languages: adagt |, | | agin} | | [ain | io 5 git | = gen = Lula Noe cata) aa | eee cia) ee | Dw kee | i) kém | L kit 1 Bade-Ngizin stock of ancient pronouns: SH *k- | sH *kv-m | sH *k- ARON DOLGOPOLSKY Table A. Part 3 1 sing. | 1 plur. inclusive 1 pl. excl., 1 plur. es se ES er rere ee Ss srLlLrlrhL Central Chadic languages: Mr Tndlud yy Mn tya | jars a Bn yin | Ms | Bd Cab} ——L central Chadic stock of ancient pronouns: SH #T/#iy , *an-Z. | *m-un (derived from *Uyv, mv < N end sm- 1 sg.), (2) other | (1 pl. excl.) compound pronouns de- rived from *m Table a. part 4 2sg.m.,2sg. [2 sg. f. 2 plur. ESE Ona oy} P 1 7s fo ye Central Chadic languages: Mr [nd]ed og | [na}ny? | Mn ska | Skkitrd! | | | Bn y¢ | guit i Ns | | ae \. / Central chadic stock of ancient pronouns: SH *ka [sa *kv-m | si *k-w l Margi, Mandara x < 2, cf. Margi Ayer, Mandara adré ‘tooth’ < Proto-Chadic *svm. ee ge ‘ + Koya, nO ‘oul am, a4 *,ays, DAZ *,ay, VU sunouosd yoafqgns [equaraud Lotsa Aaya, (z)ac@nt! tou, jam, (B)zg2u © ays, (BIAvERG *,ay, (L)aPLo suMoUOLd quapuadapuL :93 UL dons se pansasaud aaa auepuedapuy Jo 12y1e4 oypey) waasez o4R 03 Yoeg OB Meu — [eT "RABY ee eee 8 nee ‘sexrzz08 Hes pu(ime)e sit | rune “apie ee | é comets aumyor 0 acae PTpeo mente | |?) 8 : | vy E . | « aM. ‘a i ate i Ro? e al mete Pee) we. | | “| pa 8 Pap jy IP = oe u(a)- ee ig (eRe ow ae | op al vof9] 29 eo fH) ow aul | OR ew i Bo | ele | | mel | iB: | ec 34) apu ay | | oe | 1 ‘et Pet Lon a) lel i a tua tug Be: 2 tee / 2) nega J 2! etioou :| el 2 “uu Yatou | ‘uoou gh Fed :saBenBue| o1peuy west 5 al ate hr 0 s “Buls 1 m | fe we | mmpn 70 1 + He uy6y20 “22 HS tsumouord quetoue 30 yoo3s oTpeYD uroqseg | (upS7x0 umowyun Jo we | +) ne HS | =" | es cts em pb | ea at | ewer | prety 14 / | r a4 WW ee mola] ay Pr pega “wy 03 soBenBue| 21peyy Wiayseg apy 7 To Ts | “6s 2 ‘cw “Bs z 1 { I | PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OP THE CHADIC LANGUAGES A tentative Semito-Hamitic and Nostratic explanation of the Chadic pronominal morphemes is presented in Table B: Table B. A tentative etymological explanation of the Chadic pronouns and pronominal affixes. Part 1. 1 sing. 1 pl. incl. 1 pl. excl. Additional NOL. micre (> re, x] 3.7 Ahund 5.7 Huy wer [gOS y U, A, traces ‘we' (> IE, (> IE, SH) ‘self (> 0 in sx) + SH, K) 6. nV ‘us, by a, say] ' 2. thoy? ‘my, by me 4. gO ‘ust ws, our! axel. hho Seay Ore, K, se, | incl. x, | Gx, si, me, Gf out, | D) SH, A) >) ee SH Pad r tmy [agus fav, a 4D, self! 942 incl. 4 excl. 6 let ty /#T tmy, me’ 4 *?anv-)hinu | WyV 1 pl. excl. a es u. We 'T! subject 2 "wet 3, 94: pena sm 'T' (traces in i ch, x3) 1 WCh (> HAB, SB, NB) Want 942, °F 2, om 4 HAB *anZ 942, #7 2 (enerali marker) SB *(an-)my 1, 941 | oman ‘m+ another sut-| fix or #9yV with "added by analogy Ch’ +m Uy 5, mv 6 Ron igi + wav 6 T/* tyV 2, 7 BNO) one sf . ay iy S o a ECh *(an-)nV (9+)6 (generalized as 1 plural marker) *hinu 3 wuyy s a ARON DOLGOPOLSKY Table B. Part 2 2 singular N 7. *£fi ‘thou, by thee! © 1B, U, a, G, SH)? 8. *KY ‘thy, thee! | © K, a, sk)! 2 sing. masc. 2 sing. fem. | 2 plural SH *¢- *thout 7 2 sg. (*t-, | 2 sg. (*t=, the, Wan-t¥ "thou' + ‘thyself! 947 | *ka, ant-) +| Mant-) + plural thy ‘thy, thee' 8 fem. markers, | markers, ¢.g. tk-a ‘thy, thee' masc. 8 e. thew kei 8410 | ‘ tka-m 9411 WCh (> HAB, SB, NB) *kt, *kam iia see SB *kam ch On kam ae Ron WE BNg Tam Ech "ke, ham, that an 1 see Dolgopolsky 1984. The smal] numbers added to Semito-Hamitic, WCh etc. forms (e.g. "SH *an-Z 942") refer to the Nostratic morphemes enumerated at the top of the table. They have been reconstructed (by V. I11i¢-Svityé and by the present author) on the basis of the following morpheme comparisons: 1, *mé 'I' > IE “mi, 1 sg. marker (subject of the verb, e.g. *ee-mi ‘I am'), *me, *m-, 1 sg. personal pron. (obl. cases); K *me/é 'I', pre- verbal *n-'me's U nl, *mé=n-, 1 sg. pronoun (with *n- < *iu, genitive case marker; in the Finnic and Samoyed languages *min- has been general- ized for the whole declension paradigm of the pronoun 'I'); Altaic: Proto-Turkic nom. *bé(< *m¢) 'I' (> Chuvash ese), ob]. *man- (later PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHADIC LANGUAGES generalized for the whole paradigm of 'I'), *m 'I' (verbal subject), ‘my' (nominal suffix), PMong. nominative *bi (< Ym), genitive *nt-nu, 1 sg. pron., PTung. nom. *bé (< mi), in obl. cases *min-, 1 sg. pron.; in SH there are traces of the pronoun *ni 'I', e.g. in Highland East Cushitic (Kambatta yom-mi 'I am'), in Southern and Northern Bauchi (Lungi mi 'I', Pa’a ma 'I'), See I114&-Svityt 1976: 63-6, Dolgopolsky 1972a: 103-12, 1984: 66, 73-82, 84-5, 93-9, 112. 2. *hoyy ‘by me' (agent), 'my' >SH*-, 1 sg. subject (+ agentive) marker of the verb (> Sem. *-, Cushitic *-), *?ya 'my' (> Sem. *-ya/ +4 'my', Sidamo ~ya 'ny', etc.), Eg. wy 'I's K *ho-, 1 sg. agentive verbal prefix (> Svan, Old Georg. «~-, w-, Georg. v-, Megrelian w); IE ¥(-e/o)-a (> *-3), 1 sg. subject suffix of thematic verbs (*-2/o- be- longing to the verbal stem), *-2a(i), 1 sg. medium ending of verbs ( + ‘mihi'; e.g. Hittite -na, IE *bher-zat 'I bring for myself' > OInd. Bharé, *wotd-aat 'I see for myself! + 'I know' > OChSlavic vedz 'I know'), Proto-Anatolian praes. 1 sg. *-he (following Rosenkranz), praet. *ha, 1 sg. subject (+ agentive?) verbal suffix (> Old Hittite praes. whe > Hittite -Ac, praet. Luw., Pal. -ha, Lyc. ~ya); Elamic hu > u'I', ~hu > ~h > ~7, 1 sg. subject suffix of transitive verbs (+ agentive 1 sg. suffix?), D *ya, *yan- 'I', In K the prefix *”u~ refers to the agent of the verb (i.e. is sintactically parallel to a nominal subject, which is expressed by a noun in the ergative case — at least with the past tenses of the verb); it seems logical to assume that K */- goes back to an agentive (ergative) 1 sg. pronoun and that the same is true of the origin of the cognate IE and SH morphemes. See Dolgopolsky 1984, Diakonoff 1965: 80, 86-7, Rosenkranz 1978: 82. 3. * (2) huny (or *wiv) ‘we' (inclusive?) > SH *ginu [> Sem, *(aln~timu 'we' > Hebrew *andimit, Eth. nolmil, Akkad. ninu; Cush. *#invn > Beja henin 'we', Somali tma-gu 'we' inclus. independent, aynu ‘we! incl. subject, ina ‘us’ incl.; Chadic: Mokilko *tn- 'we' incl., Eastern Dangaleat -yen ‘us' incl.]3 K *[3-Juen-i ‘our’ (*2- is the marker of Possessive pronouns in K, cp. *e-m-t 'my', *Sen-i < *S-sen-i 'thy'); IE: Hittite -ven (praeteritum) and -ven-i (praesens), 1 pl. suffixes of ARON DOLGOPOLSKY verbs, Palaic -wari, 1 pl. praesens suffix. In K and IE *we <*u (see I11i&-Svityé 1971: 153) and *% is often lost (*h > *n > *P). See Dolgo- polsky 1973: 154-5, Klimov 1964: 219-20, Rosenkranz 1978: 79-80, Korolev 1976; 22. In the reconstructed form we cannot distinguish between N *n and postalveolar *i (symbolized by V. 111i&-Svityt as *#), since the phonemic opposition of N *: and *2 has not been preserved in SH, K, and IE (cf. I114&-Svityé 1971: 150). 4. %g0, 1 plur. incl. > K preverbal *gu- 'us' incl. (> Svan gu- ‘us! incl., Georgian gv- ‘us'); Chadic: Bade (gud 'us' incl., Bokkos kd, She gyd 'we' incl. (subject); perhaps also in A: Turkic *-q 'we', 1 pl. verbal suffix [> Turkish -k : yas~di-k 'we wrote', Qazaq, Qaraqalpaq, Qirgiz, Uzbek, Modern Uyghur -q; *¢ (from *k, i.e. *% fortis) is the regular reflex of N word-initial *g before back vowels (see I11it-Svityé 1971: 147, 169)]; PTungusian *-ga- ‘let us' (inclusive): Ewenki baka- ga-t ‘let us receive’, Lamut -ga-r, Negidal -ga-y. See Sunik 1962: 194, Klimov 1964: 60, Kotwicz 1962: 166-8. 5. (2) *Huyv ‘we! > IE *wet- (> Olnd. vay-dm, Avest. vadm, Gothic » Hitt. wes 'we' pl., Old Church Slavic ve 'we' dual), Chadic * vy ‘we! exclusive (> Mokilko *dy , Margi *ya, etc.), and perhaps D ‘ya-m ‘we! exclusive. The pronoun may be akin to *hoyy 'I' (see #2 above). wet: 6. *nv (or *iv) ‘us, by us, our’ exclusive > K *n- > Svan n(o)= 'us* exclusive, ndy 'we'; Sem., Berber, Cush. *-, 1 pl. subject prefix of verbs, postnominal Sem. *-ni ‘our', Sidamo, Oromo nu ‘we', Somali [an] nu (subject) and [an-]na[-gu] (independent) 'we' exclusive, Chad. *2v ‘we! exclusive (see Table A); IE *no-: *no~s/*nd-s/*g-e ‘us’ (> Olnd. nas, Avest. nd, Goth. wis, OChS1 nu, etc.); Elam. nuku 'we' exclusives Gilyak (Amur dial.) fag, (Eastern Sakhalin dial.) nin ‘we' exclusive. Here also it is impossible to distinguish between N * and *i, for lack of necessary U and A data. See Dolgopolsky 1984: 90. SH (> Sem., Cush.) prefix conjugation uses *- as 1 sg. subject marker and *n- as 1 pl. subject marker, In other related languages the cognates PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHADIC LANGUAGES of these morphemes were used originally in syntactic functions of ob- lique cases (ergative, genitive, etc.): K *’w- (1 sg. agentive prefix of verbs) is used originally (and partly in attested languages) in erg- ative constructions; IE *2” in the Hittite -h¢-conjugation goes back probably to an ergative periphrastic construction; K and IE *#- (1 pl.) are used mainly in oblique cases. These parallels suggest that the SH prefix conjugation may well go back to some periphrastic construction with the subject in ergative or some other oblique case (cf. Diakonoff 1965: 86-7). This hypothesis can account for the morphemic resemblance between the SH and the K prefix conjugations and the Hittite -h¢-conjuga- tion (*hoy?-conjugations going back probably to analytical constructions with the subject in the ergative or some other oblique case) as opposed to the IE *mé-conjugation resembling the conjugations in U and A and the *+mi-conjugation in Highland East Cushitic (*/-conjugations going back to constructions with the subject in nominative). See Dolgopolsky 1984, 1972a: 103-112, 1972b: 32-4. 7. *¢{@) 'thou' > SH *t-, 2 pers. subject prefix of the verb (> Sem., Cush., Berd. *t-), *an-t'c) ‘thou’ (> Sem. *an-ta, Cush. *an-zd > Agaw * ane), East Cush. *atd); IE *t-, stem of the 2 sg. pronoun (accus. *t ~ *te, nom. in West IE *ti, Anatolian *ti> Hitt. 2t); U *ez, obl. *t¢/u/iin , 2 sg. pronoun (in some branches *t¢/u/in- is generalized for the whole declension paradigm of ‘thou'); PMong. *té > Mong. &¢ ‘thou'; Gilyak 2% ‘thou’. See Dolgopolsky 1984, 111id-Svityt 1971; 6. 8, *Kv (= *ey or *gv) ‘thee, thy’ > SH *u ‘thee, thy’ (> OAkkad. kwa-ti 'thee' m., Eg. dw < *kw, dy.t, 2 sg. m. pron., Cush. *ku ‘thee, thy' m., etc.), SH *k-a ‘thee, thy' m. (> Sem. postverbal *ka ‘thee’ m., postnominal *ka ‘thy' m., Eg. -k ‘thy! m., PBerber *-k 'thy' m., as well as Chad. *ka, 2 sg. m. pronoun); K preverbal %g- ‘thee’ (> Georg., Megr., Laz g-, Svan J 'thee'); OTurkic -(v)g ~ -(¥)y (< *-6 [*-k lenis]) with an allomorph’ =n (< stem-final nasal consonant + *-0) ‘thy’ : ddgimg “thy profit, thy wealth’, bunu-y ‘thy trouble'. See Dolgopolsky 1984, ARON DOLGOPOLSKY 1973: 77-8, Diakonoff 1965: 72, Sasse 1981: 144, Klimov 1964: 57, Tekin 1968: 122-3, Kononov 1980: 148. 9, *?onV(or *7oh7) ‘self! > U*onv (or *ofv) ‘self! (> PSamoyed *énv ‘self', used with personal pronominal suffixes to form reflexive pro- nouns: Sélqup ond-k 'myself", ondi-nei 'thyself', Nganasan nonente 'thy- self"); SH *ax-, focalizer of nouns and pronouns (+ disjuncter, i.e. marker of independent personal pronouns) > Sem. *an- (*an-aku 'I', Pani 'I', “arta 'thou' m., etc.), Cush. Man- id. (*an-Z ‘I! > Amar?ar Beja ?ana, Bilin *an, Oromo én, Somali ané-gu, Sidamo ant; Wan-ti ‘thou' > Bilin *entd, Awngi * ent, Somali adv-gu, Rendille, Oromo ati, Sidamo ati, etc.), Eg. in, focalizer of the nominal subject (+ 'self!), in-, disjuncter of personal pronouns (in-k 'I'), PBerber *enokié! '1'; Az Turkic: Oyghur ond ‘precisely, exactly’, Mongolian: Script Mong. enii-ki, Khalkha onBiz ‘the one in question, that very’ (Script Mong. mitt keveg ‘that very matter’). See Dolgopolsky 1984: 69, 91, 96, 1973: 133-5, Janhunen 1977: 18, Diakonoff 1965: 70-1, Sasse 1981: 144, Prasse 1972: 179. 10. **Ayv (= *ayv or *7ay9) ‘mother’ (+ feminine marker) > ECush. *Gyy- ‘mother’ (> Rendille ay-o, Boni ay-o*, Baiso ay-o, Oromo Zyy-3, Konso Gyy-o 'mother', Somali ay-o ‘stepmother’, Hadiyya ay-mine ‘mater familias’; see Sasse 1979: 44), Chadic *Vy ‘mother’ (Jungraithmayr- Shimizu 1981: 185) (> Mubi ra ‘mother’, etc.), Dravidian *y/*ayy- ‘mother’ (see Burrow-Emeneau 1984: 34), and possibly IE: Proto-Germanic saipt ‘mother’ (> Goth. atbet, ONorse eta, MHG edde). In different daughter-languages the root is also used as a suffix denoting female beings or referring to them: IE *-2/*~y-, nominal suffix for female beings (e.g., *v{A¥-Z ‘she-wolf! > Olnd. vxk=, Proto-Germ. *vulg¥Z > ONorse ylgr, see Brugmann 1922: 330), Sem. *7, fem. gender marker in 2 sg. f. verbal forms, Beja i id., SH *&-<, 2 sg. f. personal pronoun for oblique cases (> Sem. *ki, Eg. -&, Cush. *ki, 2 sg. f. pronoun or pronominal suffix for oblique cases, Chad. *k¢ 'thou' f.), Sem. *ant-2 "thou' f., Mong. -i, suffix for female beings (eb-z ‘she-beaver', aqa-t ‘elder sister’ from aga ‘elder brother’), POrav. *<, suffix for females PRONOUNS AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHADIC LANGUAGES (Kota gog-y ‘barren woman' ~ cp. gog-z ‘childless man’, Kannada goq4-i ‘barren woman’, Malto koce-¢ 'girl', derived from kocou ‘small, short"). The distribution of the SH fem. marker *-Z/*-i seems rather strange: both in verbs and in pronouns it is confined to the 2nd person only, in verbs (in Sem. and Beja) the gender marker of the subject is separated from the person marker (the latter is prefixed, while the former is suf- fixed), which is typologically unusual and difficult to explain, unless we assume that the fem. marker in SH goes back to an address, something Tike [~p] in Spoken English (Jésp] (+ Yes, madam), a kind of fem. form opposed to masc. [jésse:] (Yee, sir). According to this hypothesis, the etymological meaning of Akkadian ta-Z2ék-Z 'you (fF. sg.) went! is ‘thou went, mother'. See Dolgopolsky 1984: 71-2, 96. : 11, *emv ‘mother! > SH: Sem. *énm- ‘mother! (> Hebrew ?em, Aram. ?tmm-G, Arab. *wim-, etc.), Eg. im’-t ‘female of an animal’; U *emz ‘mother' (> Estonian ena 'mother', Finnish emt ‘mother, esp. of animals’, Hung. eme ‘female of an animal', Proto-Samoyed *emd ‘mother'); Mongolian: Script Mong. eme 'mother'; Proto-Tungusian *md) ‘mother, female’. In SH this root has become one of the markers of fem. in pronouns and pro- nominal affixes: SH *kv-m 'thou' fem. in Eg.-dm, Berber *kem, Chad. *kim (see Table A); Berber *m ‘thy! fem. See Diakonoff 1965: 72, 75, Cincius 1975-7: I: 451-2, Collinder 1955: 10, Janhunen 1977: 23, Dolgopolsky 1984: 71-2, 96. tte Etymological analysis of Chadic pronouns and pronominal suffixes may open the possibility of using them as a criterion for the classification of the Chadic languages. Let us check whether such a possibility exists (for pronouns of different persons and numbers) and, if so, try to apply this criterion. 1sg. As can be seen from Tables A and B, the 1 sg. pronouns are of different origin in different branches of Chadic: in Hanbole, Ron, Bade- Ngizim, Central and Eastern Chadic we find pronouns going back to SH *i/*iy- and SH *an-T 'I', while in Southern and Northern Bauchi langu- ages the 1 sg. pronouns go back to SH *m/%) —*g=;—*7=)-has~been-pre- served. As for Eastern Chadic, it uses the ancient pronouns *hinu and *(aa)nv in this function. Since shared innovations are relevant for subclassification, we can use this innovation (formation of a new pro- noun ‘for 1 pl. incl. and replacement of *g0 by this new pronoun) as a criterion and come to the conclusion that the so-called "Western Chadic" branch is not homogeneous: there is an innovation shared by Hanbole and Southern Bauchi (nothing is known on NBauchi), while Ron and Bade- Ngizim do not share it and preserve the ancient pronoun. And what is more, “according to this criterion Hanbole and Southern Bauchi are nearer to Central Chadic than to Ron and Bade-Ngizim. This criterion Suggests that Ron and Bade-Ngizim do not belong to Western Chadic (i.e. to the branch which includes the Hausa-Angas-Bolewa languages), and. the genealogical tree of Chadic may well be presented as follows: NBauchi : P ac western chadtc Central Chadic Hangbole Bauch Eastern = Ron Bade-Ngizim Chadic Proto-Chadic == The point marked by the sign + symbolizes the replacement of the 1 pl. incl. pronoun. Or course, genetic classification cannot be based on a single iso- glosse. In order to come to conclusions corresponding to historical reality we must take into account different criteria, but only those which are relevant’ and valid. “KRON”DOLGOPOLSKY “ABBREVIATIONS AND-SIGNS. “A = Altaic, BNg = Bade-Ngizim, Br = Berber, (Ch = Central Chadic, Ch = Chadic, D = Dravidian, ECh = Eastern Chadic, Eg = Egyptian, G = Gilyak, HAB = Hangbole = Hausa-Angas-Bolewa, IE = Indo-European, K = Kartvelian, KS = Cushitic, MHG = Middle High German, N= Nostratic, NB = Northern Bauchi, OChS1 = Old Church Slavonic, SB = Southern Bauchi, SH = Semito-Hamitic (= Afroasiatic), U= Uralic, WCh = Western Ghadies =v _— = 7 3 | V = unspecified vowel (vowel of unknown quality), A (or A) = unspeci- fied low vowel, E (or E) = unspecified front vowel, 0 (or 0) = unspeci- fied rounded back vowel, H (or H) = unspecified laryngeal consonant, 1 =\phoneme of doubtful identity (e.g. ‘<) = "2 or the like"), =* = approximate reconstruction, [ ] = additional parts of pronouns, common~ to different pronouns irrespective of person, e.g. “dijuncters" (morp! emes distinguishing disjunct [independent] pronouns from conjuct ones, Tike Sem. *an- in *an-aku 'I', an-ta 'thou' m., etc.), ¥= root (e.g. ,

    Potrebbero piacerti anche