Subject: re : 5 . 1484 comparative syntax

since chet creider 's posting of 8 dec rightly corrected some misinformation i gave in my off-the - top-of - the-head posting about karamojong , i decided to make amends by doing a little research ( very little ) to check the rest of what i said . consider it a xmas gift . below is the relevant section of recent nilo - saharan classification ( sudanic : nilotic ) . it 's basically the same as greenberg ( 1963 ) with some refinements in further branching but no rearrangement of limbs . east sudanic has four branches , including eastern and western , then nilotic with three branches , including west , east and south . karamojong belongs to the east branch of the nilotic branch of east sudanic . it is therefore classified as closer to maasai ( maa - lotuko branch ) and bari ( bari branch ) than to the lwo branch of the west branch of nilotic , but no closer to kalenjin , a group in the south branch ( e . g . , nandi ) than to the west branch . the following is a relatively recent classification , such as found in schadeberg 's ( 1981 ) article on nilo - saharanisch . central sudanic : moru - madi - lugbara etc east sudanic : eastern : nubian western : tama , daju kuliak : ik , so nilotic : west : ( some call it north nilotic ) burun : idem nuer - dinka : idem lwoo : north : shilluk , anwak south : achooli , luo east : ( some call it central nilotic ) bari : bari , kakwa etc maa - lotuko : maasai etc teso - turkana : karamojong , jie etc south : kalenjin : nandi - markweta : nandi , tuken elgon : sapiny , pok okiek / dorobo : sogoo etc datoga : etc beside the bewildering array of east and west branches of branches down the sudanic line i can trace my inaccuracy to conolly 's mention of jie . as a language , jie , along with karamojong and various other languages such as teso , are part of the teso - turkana branch of east nilotic . however , in an earlier classification , e . g . , crazzolara ( 1938 ) , jii is the name used for west nilotic ( or at least the current lwo and nuer - dinka branches ) . jii means " people " ( or " ordinary people " ) in most of the west nilotic languages , hence the classificational name . the dinka call themselves " jieng ' " . i suspect that the east nilotic jie ( also spelled " jiye " ) is the same word , but i have n't checked if the jie actually call themselves that . african language nomenclature is full of terms not used by the speakers themselves ( but often by sarcastic neighbors , so that , for example , while the dinka evidently see no stigma in their autonym , the achooli use the term somewhat like english uses the term " the masses " , cf . hoi polloi ) . just for fun let 's see how accurate what i said was about the numbers from one to ten are . we do n't need six through nine , because they are compounds of five plus numbers under five . the data for most languages are restricted to what i happened to have within reach without doing library research . however , the data for bari and teso ( ateso , in my experience ) are from transcriptions of recordings i made a long time ago in east africa before i even knew how these languages were classified . i do n't have published linguistic data on hand for them . in all cases i have simplified orthography for typographical ease ( losing information ) . for example , the " h " following a vowel refers to the retracted ( lax - sounding ) tongue root position of that vowel . the nilotic languages have complex vowel systems with " tense " and " lax " subsystems . of course , lexical numbers by themselves do not prove anything about genetic af finities . nevertheless , some interesting patterns emerge to compare with the currently accepted classification scheme . west nilotic : achooli anwak luo dinka nuer 1 ace : hl achyehloh achiel tok kehl 2 aryo : h areahu ariyo rou rahu 3 adeek adahgoh adehk diak dyohk 4 ang ' we : hn ang ' wehnoh ang ' wen ng ' wan ng ' wan 5 abiic abiyuh abihch dhiec dye : ch 10 apaar apar apar thiaar wahl the first consonant in ' 5 ' seems to be diagnostic of the distinctness of nuer - dinka from the lwoo group . otherwise , dinka ' 1 ' is wierd , and so is the first consonant of dinka ' 10 ' ( cf . dinka - nuer ' 5 ' ) , but not much wierder than a comparison of indo - european numbers ( cf . germanic ' 4 - 5 ' or slavic ' 9-10 ' ) . reconstruction is not difficult , although you do n't have an accurate transcription of the vowel distinctions ( or tone ) . east and south ( nandi ) nilotic : ( afro - asiatic : cushitic ) bari teso maasai nandi somali 1 kyeling ' diopeti - bo akenge kow ( southern also ' hal ' ) 2 morehk iyere - re aeng lamma 3 msala : iu ~ li - uni somok siddah 4 ingwan iwong ' wahn - ong ' uan angwan afar 5 mukanad ikany imiet mut shan 10 pwahk itomony tomon taman tommon the numbers ' 2 ' and ' 4 ' are consistent with west nilotic . otherwise , lexicon appears to be areally defined . first maasai and nandi seem to have a cognate for west nilotic ' 5 ' . however , maasai is classified with bari and teso as east nilotic . thus , bari and teso seem to share an innovation for ' 5 ' which does not extend to maasai or south nilotic . meanwhile the cognacy of bari ' 3 ' with teso and maasai is questionable , and nandi ' 3 ' is beyond the pale . interestingly , my data for bari has ' 10 ' as given , while greenberg gives bari ' 10 ' as " mere " in one of his mass cognate sets ( p . 106 ) . " pwahk " fits in with the west nilotic set , but presumably g 's data comes from a published source . ( i have n't loo ked at my data since i transcribed it - - several decades , but i relistened to my bari tape to make sure i had n't transposed the word for ' 10 ' with some other word like ' toothbrush ' . ) by the way , teso is closely related to karamojong so i would expect the numbers to be similar , including the cushitic loan for ' 10 ' , but with doubts about whether karamojong ' 5 ' would follow the maasai or bari - teso pattern . ( gotta go to the library for this one . any volunteers ? ) the word for ' 10 ' in the other east and south nilotic languages was recognised by g as a loan from somali or one of the mutually intelligible galla languages of cushitic . that 's why i gave the somali numbers above . easy to see it would be a lot more difficult to argue for somali as nilotic than for the other languages [ uhm , if their other lexical correspondences behave like their numbers - - which they do . . . g actually uses the example of cushitic multiple of ten in maasai in his arguments against meinhof 's nilo - hamitic hypothesis . cushitic was part of " hamitic " in the older terminology ( " afro - asiatic " is g 's coinage for older " semito - hamitic " ) . . note nubian ' 10 ' below . . thus , g has been as sharp to use arguments about borrowing against his opponents as have his opponents against him . what to do ? east sudanic central sudanic nubian lugbara 1 we : rum aluh 2 awum iri 3 toskum na 4 kemsum su 5 dijum towi 10 dimnum muhdri wow ! numbers do n't help unite nubian as a branch of east sudanic with nilotic . obviously other criteria were used . for superifical impression nubian ' 10 ' looks promising as cognate with south and most of east nilotic , and maybe it is , but that card has already been played non-genetically above - - and with good reason . . g , p106 again , compares bari ' 10 ' " mere " with khordofan nubian " bure " for the same ) . as central sudanic , lugbara might be expected by the naive to be even more different from nilotic than nubian , but the numbers do n't show that . g uses lugbara ' 2 ' in his mass cognate sets for the unity of central and east sudanic . interestingly , he also uses dinka ' 1 ' , the wierd one for west nilotic , in the same mass cognate sets - - for comparison with ' 10 ' in some central sudanic groups . lots of interesting claims there , e . g . , the most common west nilotic word for " one " is not proto - west nilotic , let alone proto - nilotic ( despite the suggestiveness of bari and nandi ' 1 ' above ) . g could be right , for all i know . anyway , i ' m just as interested in the areal cross-currents as in the hypotheses about genetic relationships . thus , other implications emerge from g 's mass comparison s , e . g . , the pan - nilotic word for ' 4 ' must be an areal innovation ( maybe in proto - nilotic ) since it does not occur elsewhere in nilo - saharan , or in any other known language group for that matter . so , ok . we have some pretty strong hypotheses . i have n't followed nilo - saharan studies closely , though nubian , but the numbers do n't show that . g uses lugbara ' 2 ' in his mass cognate sets for the unity of central and east sudanic . interestingly , he also uses dinka ' 1 ' , the wierd one for west nilotic , in the same mass cognate sets - - for comparison with ' 10 ' in some central sudanic groups . lots of interesting claims there , e . g . , the most common west nilotic word for " one " is not proto - west nilotic , let alone proto - nilotic ( despite the suggestiveness of bari and nandi ' 1 ' above ) . g could be right , for all i know . anyway , i ' m just as interested in the areal cross-currents as in the hypothese about genetic relationships . thus , other implications emerge from g 's mass comparisons , e . g . , the pan - nilotic word for ' 4 ' must be an areal innovation ( maybe in proto - nilotic ) since it does not occur elsewhere in nilo - saharan , or in any other known language group for that matter . so , ok . we have some pretty strong hypotheses . i have n't followed nilo - sahara n studies closely , though west african niger - congo ( actually the benue - kwa grou p of niger - congo ) . greenberg ( 1963 ) notes that westermann also used the label for various east sudanic languages ( w had done some fieldwork on nilotic ) , beli eving that they were related to the west african niger - congo ( i . e . " sudanic " ) l anguages . since i have come across occasional grumblings , begrudging g 's niger - congo hypothesis as lifted from westermann , it is fair to mention that g had t o separate w 's beliefs about " niger - congo " from his beliefs about " sudanic " . w was , of course , not influential in his beliefs about east sudanic anyway , as t he nilo - hamitic hypothesis was the more influential theory , given the ritual fa scination of european civilisation with its debt to ancient egypt and the near east , until g came along . anyway , to this day there is east and central sudani c , but after g no * west sudanic . in sum , the unity of west nilotic would be evident to even the most rigorous ne o - grammarians , and was , west african niger - congo ( actually the benue - kwa group of niger - congo ) . greenberg ( 1963 ) notes that westermann also used the label fo r various east sudanic languages ( w had done some fieldwork on nilotic ) , believ ing that they were related to the west african niger - congo ( i . e . " sudanic " ) lan guages . since i have come across occasional grumblings , begrudging g 's niger - c ongo hypothesis as lifted from westermann , it is fair to mention that g had to separate w 's beliefs about " niger - congo " from his beliefs about " sudanic " . w w as , of course , not influential in his beliefs about east sudanic anyway , as the nilo - hamitic hypothesis was the more influential theory , given the ritual fasc ination of european civilisation with its debt to ancient egypt and the near ea st , until g came along . anyway , to this day there is east and central sudanic , but after g no * west sudanic . in sum , the unity of west nilotic would be evident to even the most rigorous ne o - grammarians , and was , of them do not practice the selective circularity metho d which g 's method is best equipped to attack . they do not seem to be in a hur ry or even primarily concerned with lumping languages into deeper and deeper pr oto-families . these were , after all , more primary concerns for the use of ling uistic data in the " history-explains / justifies-everything " intellectual climate of the 19th century . given the current emphasis on typological detail and uni versals , and the counter-concern with cultural relativity and composite cultura l uniqueness , at least as cherished by amerindists as by any other linguists be cause of the amerindist anthropological tradition , accuracy of data is a paramo unt concern , even if errors are overwhelmed by reliable facts in drawing " big p ictures " by the mass comparison method . so , g 's final destination may be a bump on the road for amerindists , or even a different road leading in a different d irection , and an unwelcome distraction - - like a flat tire . benji
