The Position of Kam (Central-Eastern Nigeria) Within Niger-Congo

Home , Chamba Leko, The Languages of Africa

The position of Kam (Central-Eastern Nigeria) within Niger-Congo

And the overestimation of genealogical uniformity in African languages Jakob Lesage (LLACAN, Paris) [email protected] +32479968126 ASIMIL, 03-Apr-2019, Leiden

1 • Since Greenberg (1963): four super-families (Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan) • For decades, questions of uniformity and African diversity preferred genealogical answers over areal patterns and contact scenarios (cf. language Güldemann 2018b) • This view neglects natural dynamicity and classification diversity of languages and cultures and gives an unrealistically static picture of the African past • Contact scenarios are, however, everywhere in Africa (Güldemann 2018b: 454-472)

2 • Making comparative data available on an undescribed language • To typologists: African languages are not adequately classified; be careful when Reasons for this sampling! • Any feedback from traditions that have been presentation more critical of Greenberg’s proposals and macro-comparative research? • Case-study of language that is difficult to classify if the only model we want to use is genealogy

3 Niger-Congo classification

• Fairly well established as a unit (be it as a ‘domain’, ‘pool’, ‘phylum’ or ‘family’) • Noun class morphology • Pronominal paradigms (Güldemann 2017) • Numerals (Güldemann 2018a, Pozdniakov 2018) • Some phylum-wide vocabulary (tongue, person, people) • Sub-classification (41 low-level groups; 5 higher-level groups): different methods with different degrees of robustness • B: Regular sound correspondences (+ morphology): 11 sub- subgroups, e.g. Bantu (which is actually a sub-sub-sub-subgroup) • C: ‘Obvious’ relatedness (+ lexicostatistics, morphology): 22 sub- subgroups, e.g. Igboid • D: ‘Scattered resemblances’ (mass comparison): 8 sub-subgroups and all 5 higher-level groups, e.g. Adamawa, Benue-Congo, Gur

Good (2017) 4 Kam (àw̃ɔ̀m): an Adamawa (Niger Congo) language?

• 5,000-20,000 speakers, 20 villages • Farmers-fishers-hunters • Claim Jukun descent (kororofa kingdom) – close contact (e.g. religion, Meek 1931b,c) • Trade language: Hausa; Fulfulde major language since Fula jihad (early 19th century) • Close contact with various other groups, e.g. Mumuye (‘Adamawa’), Jirim (‘Dakoid’), Chamba Leko (‘Adamawa’), recently Glavda (Chadic)

5 Kam classification

• Kam: claim Jukun origin • Meek (1931c): not Jukun, but claimed resemblances with Cross River, Bendic,

Kushi Tula-Waja (Gur)

Kushi (Chadic)

Kam, Jirim

Jukun

Cross River Bendic

Hammarström et al (2018) 6 Kam classification

• Greenberg (1963): Adamawa (based on Meek’s 100 words) • Adamawa-Gur continuum or genealogical/areal pool (Kleinewillinghöfer 2010) • Little evidence for genealogical unity: high-level Niger-Congo isolate? (Güldemann 2018b; Hammarström et al. 2018)

Gur Adamawa

7 Reevaluating Kam classification

• Sample of features: • Unusual typology: phonology, logophoricity, serial verb constructions, clause- final negation, STAMP morphs (auxiliaries), plural words • Noun structure: a- and N-prefixes • Subject pronouns: 1SG, 2SG, 1PL, 2PL • Lower numerals: 2, 3, 4, 5 • Basic lexicon: Leipzig-Jakarta list (Haspelmath & Tadmor 2009)

8 Reevaluating Kam classification

• Sample of languoids • Proto-Niger-Congo: Güldemann (2017) for pronouns, Güldemann (2018a) for numerals and some basic vocabulary • Potential genealogically distant contact languages? Chadic, Kanuri, Hausa, Adamawa Fulfulde → no obvious links at this point • Geographically close Niger-Congo languages • Jukunoid (Shimizu 1980, Storch 1999) • Mumuyic (Shimizu 1979) • ɲesam (Eveling Villa, p.c.) and Yendangic (Blench n.d. & Güldemann 2018a) • Other Niger-Congo languages • Edoid (Elugbe 1989) • Potou-Akanic (Stewart 2002) • Central Gur (Manessy 1979)

9 Comparative Kam 1 – Typology and the Macro-Sudan belt • Kam is areally and typologically part of a linguistic Macro-area, i.e. the Macro- Sudan Belt (latest: Güldemann 2018b) • Labial-velar consonants (kp, gb) • Nasal vowels (but rare) • Logophoric pronouns • STAMP morphs (TAM on pronouns) • Clause-final negation • Plural word = chain of overlapping clusters with areal features; areal and not genealogical

Güldemann (2010)10 Comparative Kam 2: noun structure, nominal prefixes, and Central Jukunoid • 1/3 of noun stems in Kam have a prefix-like element • à- (276), e.g. à-gbág ‘stool’; àgbáŋ ‘chin’, àbì ‘song’, àtʃì ‘child’ • Ǹ- (108), e.g. m̀púŋ ‘jug’; m̀ fɔ̀ ‘forest’; ǹtàm ‘medicine’; ŋ̄mkpɔ̄ŋ ‘agama lizard’ • No indications of noun class functions synchronically, but occurrence of a- is phonologically conditioned: non-postpausally → ɨ- or ø- • cf. Central Jukunoid noun class prefixes, e.g. Jukun Takum (Shimizu 1980: 121- 122); other Jukun (Storch 1999: 308-320) • no other language in the sample has something similar.

11 Comparative Kam 3: subject pronouns and numerals → Mumuyic & Yendangic

1SG 2SG 1PL(.E) 2PL two three four five Kam N-; ɲɨm̀ a; ɲa juru ɲo jīrāg tʃàr/l/d ǹ.nár/l/d ŋ̀.w̃ún Proto-NC °mE °mO °TI NI °Ri °ta(C) °na(C) °nU Mumuyic °mE; °N °mo °rO, wO °noO °zi.ti (?) °taa.ti °(d)nee.ti °maani Yendangic °m(E) °mO °tO °no °iDNE(t) °taa.t °naa.t °nu.ŋ Jukunoid °-mi °-wu °-jE °-nE(n) °pan, cj °tar, cj °(-)NE.(n), cj °to.n, cj Potou-Akanic *-mE *wO/fO *jɛ *mO *(-)ɲɔ̃ *-tã *-nã n/a Edoid *mhɛ n/a *-mhanhi *bha(dhi) *-və *-cha.Gɪ *-niə *-chi.Nə.nhi Central Gur °mE °mO °TI n/a *le, °-nyo *ʈa, °sa *naː.(si), °nyi *nu, °-mU.wa Note: N = homorganic nasal; I = close vowel; E = front Note: analogical changes in numerals (Pozdniakov vowel; O = back vowel; T = alveopalatal consonant (t, 2018): blurs regular sound correspondences, but at d, l, r); R = rhotic; C = unidentified consonant; ° = the same time provides other opportunities for psuedo-reconstruction; * = cited reconstruction; cj = comparison Central Jukunoid 12 Analogical changes in numerals (Pozdniakov 2018)

• Analogy = irregular phonetic changes of adjacent numerals which makes these numerals resemble each other • Kam: 3-4: final consonant; 4-5: initial consonant • 3-4 grouped together: also in other ‘Adamawa’ languages • 4-5 grouped together: also in other ‘Adamawa’ languages

two three four five jīrāg tʃàr/l/d ǹ.nár/l/d ŋ̀.w̃ún

13 Comparative Kam 4: lexical comparison

• Collection of Leipzig-Jakarta list for sampled (proto-)languages • Attempt to find comparative series → failed • Superficial similarities (borrowing or inheritance with little change, or chance): • Central Gur: 8/58 = 14% • Mumuyic: 6/54 = 11% • ɲesam (Yendangic): 10/90 = 11% • Jukunoid: 7/79 = 9% • Edoid: 4/59 = 7% • (Potou-Akanic: 2/20 = 10%)

14 Comparative Kam 4: lexical comparison, shared across multiple languages (9)

bird bone breast dog mouth come grind water Kam núŋ à.kùb à.vĩ̃́ wó w̃é pɛ̀ nàm mɨŋ̀ .káŋá Central Gur ? *ʔob, *ʔo ? *ɓa *nan, *no *ba *nam, *nem (*ni, nã, ov) Mumuyic *dʒaV-nuŋ ?*ka *min *za-V, *zaa *ɲa-V, *ɲaa *e ? *mi-V, *min ɲesam ?bɛnuɛ kuɓi nwe bɛz̀ ā ɲe inaŋ na mi Jukunoid *ki-/li-nùn *ku-/a-kup *ki-/a-bjan *i-bu *u-/i-ndut *ba *kwa *mbjed Edoid *a-pɪ ? ? *a-bh ɞa *a-nuə ? *lɔ A-mɪN Potou- ? ? ? ? *-nʊ̃ ? ? *-dʒu Akanic

15 Comparative Kam 4: lexical comparison

• 12 words shared between Kam and one other language • 76 words without any links so far (78%) • Much more work has to be done on reconstruction and documentation (e.g. Yendangic), and probably more links – possibly with comparative series – will be found.

16 Comparative Kam 4: lexical comparison

One very interesting case of near-homonymy:

bird eye Kam nṹŋ à.nùŋ Mumuyic dʒaV-nuŋ nuŋ Detail that may only be explainable with common inheritance. No other case of homonymy like this attested anywhere else in an African language (RefLex, Segerer & Flavier 2011; Pozdniakov, p.c.; Pozdniakov & Segerer under review)

17 Conclusions

• Introduction: genealogical explanations have traditionally been the default go-to models in Africa (and elsewhere?) for explaining convergence and divergence • Both genealogy and contact are required to model language change and to paint a realistic picture of the (linguistic) past of any community • The historical contexts for language contact are in fact much more natural than the contexts needed for ‘regular’ inheritance • So there’s no problem for assuming contact scenarios, even if there is no historical evidence for it; at least no bigger problem than assuming inheritance scenarios

18 Conclusions • Contact is obvious in Kam on various layers • Areal typological profile (Macro-Sudan Belt) • Nominal prefixes suggest a link with Jukun, but only in part of the vocabulary • Not mentioned: religious terminology and proper names often of Jukun origin • Not mentioned: imperfective aspect construction is very similar to Jukun • Vocabulary shared with different languages, sometimes extremely similar • Genealogy? • Pronouns and numerals: Yendangic + Mumuyic; fits with Niger-Congo • Vocabulary: some shared vocabulary with geographically distant Gur, also Yendangic & Mumuyic • But: no regular sound correspondences so far • Near-homonymy in Kam and Mumuyic: bird & eye

19 Some speculation

• Oral history: Kam encountered and conquered an unidentified ethnic group when they went to live in Kamajim • Jukun elements and Mumuyic/Yendangic elements may suggest superstrate-substrate influence • Possibly, some elements of Kam are the remnant of an absorbed earlier population • Alternatively, Kam was the unidentified ethnic group (Mumuyic?), and the conquering involved ‘Jukunization’ of Kam in terms of religion, oral history, and part of the language • Note that a specific group of Mumuye, Pugû, mysteriously claims Kam ancestry, and the Mumuye claim to come from a place they say was founded by the Kam, Yoro (Meek 1931a: 448-449)

20 Complex genealogy and contact in Central-Eastern Nigeria and West-Africa (Güldemann 2018b: 458) • Not just ‘meeting place of three major African phyla’ (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afro-Asiatic) • Majority of people belong to ‘minority groups’, incredible ethnic diversity and complex alliances that supersede simple categories such as ‘Christian vs. Muslim’, ‘Hausa vs. Jukun’, ‘Farmer vs. herdsman’, ‘tribe A vs. tribe B’. Ethnicity does not coincide with language affiliation. • Language shift as a recurrent phenomenon • Restructuring of many ‘colonizing’ Chadic languages as they came into contact with local languages. • “Benue-Gongola-Chad Basin”: high language density of many related languages • Identification of near-extinct language isolate Jalaa and its interaction with Waja- Jen languages (and these in turn with Chadic) (Kleinewillinghöfer 2001) points to high degree of genealogical diversity, as well as complex contact scenarios in the past.

21 kɔḿ â, ń tʃáŋájì

Jakob Lesage (LLACAN, Paris) [email protected] +32479968126 ASIMIL, 03-Apr-2019, Leiden

22 References (1)

Blench, R. (no date). The Maya [Yendang] languages: Wordlists collected by Barau Kato and Zachariah Yoder. Elugbe, B. O. (1989). Edoid. In J. T. Bendor-Samuel (Ed.), The Niger-Congo languages (pp. 291–304). Lanham: University Press of America. Good, J. (2017). Niger-Congo Languages. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics (pp. 471–499). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279872.018 Greenberg, J. H. (1963). The Languages of Africa. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Güldemann, T. (2010). Sprachraum and geography: Linguistic macro-areas in Africa. In Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science: Vol. 30. Language and space. An international handbook of linguistic variation, Vol. 2: Language mapping (Vol. 2, pp. 561– 585). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Güldemann, T. (2017). A shared pronominal canon in the Macro-Sudan belt: Typological, areal and genealogical perspectives. In K. Raija & R. Kießling (Eds.), Mechthildian approaches to Afrikanistik: Advances in language based research in Africa, Festschrift für Mechthild Reh (pp. 101–146). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. Güldemann, T. (2018a). 2. Historical linguistics and genealogical language classification in Africa. In T. Güldemann (Ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of Africa (pp. 58–444). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421668-002 Güldemann, T. (2018b). 3. Language contact and areal linguistics in Africa. In T. Güldemann (Ed.), The Languages and Linguistics of Africa (pp. 445–545). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421668-003 Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., & Haspelmath, M. (2018). Glottolog 3.3. Retrieved from http://glottolog.org 23 References (2) Haspelmath, M., & Tadmor, U. (2009). Loanwords in the world’s languages: a comparative handbook. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Manessy, G. (1979). Contribution à la classification généalogique des langues voltaiques: Le proto-central. Paris: SELAF. Meek, Charles Kingsley. (1931a). Tribal Studies in Northern Nigeria. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner. Meek, Charles Kingsley. (1931b). A Sudanese Kingdom: An Ethnographical Study of the Jukun-speaking Peoples of Nigeria. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lts. Meek, Charles Kingsley. (1931c). Tribal Studies in Northern Nigeria, Volume Two (Vols. 1–2). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lts. Pozdniakov, K. (2018). The numeral system of Proto-Niger-Congo. Retrieved from http://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=1001684 Segerer, G., & Flavier, S. (2011). RefLex: Reference Lexicon of Africa. Retrieved from http://reflex.cnrs.fr/ Shimizu, K. (1979). A comparative study of the Mumuye dialects (Nigeria). In Marburger Studien Zur Afrika- Und Asienkunde. Serie A, Afrika: Vol. 14. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Shimizu, K. (1980). Comparative Jukunoid (Vols. 1–2). In Beiträge Zur Afrikanistik: Vol. 5, 6 (Vols. 1–2). Vienna: Afro-Pub. Stewart, J. M. (2002). The potential of Proto-Potou-Akanic-Bantu as a pilot Proto-Niger-Congo, and the reconstructions updated. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 23(2), 197–224.

Storch, A. (1999). Das Hone und seine Stellung im Zentral-Jukunoid. In Westafrikanische Studien: Vol. 20. Köln: Rudiger Köppe. 24