Nrr,O- S¡,Hanax Rnvrsrrno L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nordic Journøl of,lfrican Studies 8(2): 108-1 j8 (1999) N íl o- S aharan Revis it e d Nrr,o- S¡,Hanax Rnvrsrrno l. SupponrrNc EvIDENcE PERTTI MIKKOLA University of Helsinki, Finland 1.1 Srnlcr CzuteRIe., GRmNeBRc's D¿,t¡, The total length of the test list2 was 93 items; altogether 68 glosses involving ca. 103 observed to occur in Greenberg's Nilo-Saharan etymology lists. Inthe INIRonucttoN etymologies were statistical approach only one of these (#225r in the combined list) 'who?' was significantly above the expected by random coincidence (at the 95 per cent level), In Nilo-Saharan is the mostproblematic case in Greenberg's (196311966) classification of addition, nearly significant cases were etymologies #209 'tooth' (in Eastem Sudanic) and African languages. Previously the role of chance in mass comparison has #224'white 3'. Other important etymologies within the sample found more often than the ry'm-ary (Mikkola been investigated with approach 1998). The test comprised a expected included notably: 'meît?'(one of the common African roots), 'dog'(which is languages in Greenberg's Nilo-Saharan word lists. standard sample from l8 Consonants a Wanderwort), 'mouth 2' (Eastern Sudanic),'man l'(mostly Eastern Sudanic) and 'to were grouped into I types corresponding to natural classes, any vowels were accepted. kill2lto die 2' (rwo roots; also found in Niger-Congo). The probabilities of every different word-initial Cvc-sequence type were investigated, Though the quantþ of strict similarities between Nilo-Saharan lineages is usually and the expected dishibutions were compared with the observed scores. Around a dozen insignificant, we ought not to forget that some languages had incomplete data. None of common of the observed similarities were more than expected by random coincidence, the investigated etymologies occurred in more than halfthe sample languages (with strict though usually not significantly. For details of the methodology, results and the criteria), in the original data. background see Mikkola (1998). The aim of this paper is to go beyond the results of that statistical approach. Those of Greenberg's etymologies observedmore oftenthanexpected are includedinthismore 1.2 SUppInMENTARY EvDeNce deøiled qualitative investigation. These best etymologies are compared with new and more comprehensive data, including all Nilo-Saharan stocks. Besides the statistically In search of additional supporting evidence, Bender (various works, especially 1996a), strict tokens, other important supporting (and conflicting) evidence is taken into Ehret (1989 etc.), and several other sources were consulted. Gumuz and Krongo were consideration. In addition, the results are controlled against other African phyla, also included in this search. The supplementary evidence will be discussed from including short discussion concerning the Kongo-Saharan or Niger-Saharan a I linguistic and areal viewpoints. If statistically strict criteria are required, important hypotheses.r l additional supporting evidence was observed only in a few cases. Allowing transitional correspondences, more sound changes, semantic shifts, and coincidences in additional lr languages within the stocks, the number of observed possible cognates markedly increased. However, the role of chance increases considerably. I Abbreviations: Bender's (e.g. 1996a) code system forNilo-Saharan (A, B, ... Ek, En /El, E2, I lend support to the Nilo-saharan hypothesis, with ...Fp, Fc ..., K, L) was applied; otherwise: Nevertheless, the results seem to ! the exception of o.nly afew lineages. With supplementary evidence, one of Greenberg's NS = Nilo-Saharan proposed etymologies was observed to occur in 12 sample languages (out of l8). The i. CN : Chari-Nile expanded database also revealed further supporting evidence for other proposed ES = Eastem Sudanic { cognates. For details see chapter 4. Because the statistical analysis was only based on a NC = Niger-Congo I rl AA = Afroasiatic I KS = Khoisan 2 Bender's Ethiopian word list; without personal pronouns, which Greenberg included in his PWS = Proto-Western Sudanic (by V/estermann 1927) f! list grammatical elements. PHS : Proto-Hamito-Semitic (by Orel & Stolbova 1995) I of I CVC-types (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant), for details see Mikkola (1998:71-72): 3 Note that the numbering system was made for the combined word list; regarding the original Ø = zero consonant (word-initial/final vowel/semi-vowel), M, N, L (1, r), S, P, T, and K. (Greenberg 196311966) numbers see the discussion in chapter 4. I 108 109 t ii I Nowlío .fnurnøl ofAfrícan Studies RevÍsíted sample data of Greenberg's word lists, a few additional coincidences (i.e. other glosses) In addition, they were found to occur in many different branches without even contact could presumably be found if comprehensive data were used for the whole list. to Nilo-Saharan. Therefore, at leasta late contact is, presumably, out of consideration as an explanation for the coincidences. Interestingly, this mightsupportthe Kongo-Saharan hypothesis proposed by Gregersen (1972). 2. CorNcrpENCES rN INDTvTDUAL SAMpLE Le¡¡cuRcps Blench (1995) has claimed that Niger-Congo is only a 'branch' of Nilo-Saharan. Though his evidence for 'Niger-Saharan' is not exhaustive, the hypothesis might still be some like Songai, Kuliak, Using strict criteria (see Mikkola 1998), the individual sample languages featured these regarded as a serious one; however, possibly without outliers, of his classification. See also etymologies quite sporadically as seen in Appendix 2 (being more common than unã Gumn". Nevertheless, I cannot agree with the details expected according to the Poisson distribution, though not necessarily significantly). the discussion and additional suggested items linking NS andNC by Bender (1981: 263; (1978, 1996) and some chance cognates, loans (like wanderwort 'dog') and possibly sound symbolic 1992:3'7; and 1996a: esp. 66, ll8-119, 126-136). Cf. also Boyd acceptable. words are necessarily included in the table. Temein had no strict non-chance word-initial Williamson (1989: 7-9). However, not all proposed similarities seem presumably due to contact, sound cVC-coincidence in the original sample, but this was due to the poor data. songai, Bari, The few coincidences with Afroasiatic are generally observedtooccuronly in some Mangbetu, and Koma had only I each. The most frequent sample languages were Maba symbolism, andchance. These similaritieswere is and Nera, both with 6 items in the test list. All others featured 2-4 strict non-chance limited areal contexts (especially in Chadic, Cushitic and Omotic), where borrowing CVC-coincidences in the list. the most plausible explanation. South African Khoisan (and several non-African geographic distance and the Concerning the strict similarities, the supplementary data did not affect these figures languagesj appeared to be much more divergenq reflecting to find, even in significantly in most cases. Noteworthy were a few additional items in Eastern Sudanic lack of genetiõ relationship. As a whole, a handful of similarities is easy (like Temein, Nyimang and Gaam) and a reduction of one or two items in Nyangi (not unrelated languages (e.g. Sandawe). being strict coincidences). Because ihe starting point in the statistical analysis was Nilo-Saharan, some bias too If transitional coincidences (like 'movable k' and some differences in the second follows and might distort the results regarding outside comparisons, i.e. towards a consonant) are included, the picture substantially changes. From several languages, comprehensive picture ofNilo-Saharan. Any consideration of this type ofbias has ofren considerably more evidence can be found. However, some languages, especially songai been neglected in language comparisons. and Nyangi, are not much better Nilo-Saharan candidates after this procedure. Temein and Bari are still badly represented. However, additional evidence was observed in other Temein andNilotic languages. All otherNilo-Saharansample languages featured atleast 4. CotvtunNTs oN THe Besr Ervuol-oclps 3-6 coincidences with this somewhat subjective approach (some Eastern Sudanic languages even 7-9). When moderate semantic shifts and cognates in closely related No systematic effor-searching conceming the qualþ of Greenberg's data was carried languages were allowed, still more evidence was observed - up to l0-l I roots per stock out, úut note some (only minor) differences to other sources. Besides Greenberg's word (out of l3 etymologies in Appendix l). lists, several other works were also consulted.a These are quoted only if additional lnthenon-sampleNilo-Saharan lineages, several important coincidences were found supporting or conflicting evidence was found. Therefore, the lack of citation is relevant, in Krongo, but only one or trro in Gumuz. No definite solution for this can as yet be and reflecis that unrelated roots were observed to occur in these Nilo-saharan stocks (in suggested. It might be that Gumuz is an isolate, instead ofbeing a Nilo-saharan language languages investigated). To save space, the differences in transcriptions and the (often (Bender, p.c.). Note, thatBender(1979:40) had even formerly expressed similardoubts: extiausiive¡ additional evidence within the same stocks are generally not shown (unless "perhaps not even a Sahelian language at all". qualitatively relevant). The etymologies are discussed in alphabetical order, in each case beginning with the original data in Greenberg (1966). It has to be emphasized that this discussion includes, besides real