The Origin of Plural Gender in East-Cushitic Languages Jeffrey Nijboer
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Origin of Plural Gender in East-Cushitic Languages Jeffrey Nijboer MA thesis Linguistics, Leiden University, December 2019 s1166182 i Abstract There are a number of Cushitic languages that have a gender system that includes a gender known as „plural gender‟. The existence of „plural‟ gender is a peculiar feature in these languages and for that reason this thesis aims to find out how this gender developed. This thesis analyzes three languages in each of two branches of East-Cushitic languages. For each of the two branches this thesis examines at least one language with plural gender and one without. ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Introduction to the Languages 5 2.1 Introduction to the Oromoid Languages 5 2.1.1 Konso 5 2.1.2 Oromo 6 2.1.3 Diraytata 8 2.2 Introduction to the Western Omo-Tana Languages 9 2.2.1 Arbore 9 2.2.2 Dhaasanac 10 2.2.3 Elmolo 10 3. The Oromoid Languages 11 3.1 Initial Proposal for Cognates 11 3.2 Proto-Oromoid Reconstruction 15 3.3 Proto-Oromoid Plural Suffix Reconstruction 17 4. The Western Omo-Tana Languages 18 4.1 Proposal for Cognates 18 4.2 Reconstruction of Plural Suffixes 20 5. Comparison and Discussion 21 5.1 Comparing Oromoid and Western Omo-Tana 21 5.2 Potential Scenarios 23 6. Summary 25 References 26 Appendix A. Black’s (1974) Phonological Reconstruction 27 Appendix B. List of Konso Plural Gender Nouns 29 Appendix C. List of Arbore Plural Gender Nouns 34 Appendix D. Listof Diraytata Plural Gender Nouns 35 iii 1. Introduction There is a complex relation between the features of gender and number in Cushitic languages (Corbett & Hayward 1987; Mous 2008; Tsegaye et al. 2013). Gender in a number of Cushitic languages has either two or three values, depending on the interpretation of linguistic data; the two undisputed values are masculine (m) and feminine (f). However, there may be a third gender: plural gender (p) (Corbett & Hayward 1987; Mous 2008; Tsegaye et al. 2013). Regardless of which analysis turns out to be correct, it is clear that there is something that is at the very least somewhat atypical about the number and gender systems of these languages. This thesis aims to find out how this came about through a comparative historical analysis of the subfamilies of some of the languages that have this system. The rest of Section 1 will show the discussion over whether plural gender is a valid category. Section 2 will introduce the languages and their subfamilies that this thesis analyzes, Section 3 will feature the analysis of the languages of the Oromoid family, Section 4 will do the same for the Western Omo-Tana family and Section 5 will compare and discuss the conclusions drawn in Sections 3 and 4 and propose a history of how plural gender arose as a feature. In an attempt to avoid confusion, this thesis will abbreviate plural gender to (p) (masculine and feminine to (m) and (f)) and plural number to pl (singular to (sg)). Furthermore, these plurals will always be referred to as either plural number (sometimes also plurative) or plural (as a) gender and not just „plural‟ when an abbreviation is not used. This is necessary, because although plural gender can be connected to plurality it ís a different category from plural as a number and referring to both as just plural will get confusing. One interpretation of this system, followed by Corbett and Hayward (1987) and Corbett (2000), holds that Cushitic languages have two gender values and that words requiring (p)- agreement are marked with plural number, because of a general typological principle that holds that the values of two independent features cannot mix (Mous 2008; Tsegaye et al. 2013). This position will henceforth be referred to as Corbett‟s position. Another position, held by most descriptive linguists working on Cushitic languages (Tsegaye et al. 2013), argues that the number system is separate from the gender system, as evidenced by the existence of separate agreement markers for the two on adjectives (Mous 2008; Tsegaye et al. 2013). This position will from now on be referred to as the traditional position (because it existed before Corbett‟s position did). To better illustrate Corbett‟s position, Corbett and Hayward‟s (1987) argumentation against plural as a gender on the basis of Bayso will now be summarised. Bayso is spoken around Lake Abaya in Ethiopia and is closely related to Somali (Corbett & Hayward 1987). In Bayso, three different agreement markers are distinguished by agreeing elements, illustrated in the following sentences by markers on verbal predicates (Corbett & Hayward 1987): (1) lúban gira lion is „There is a lion.‟ (2) kimbír gitta bird is „There is a bird.‟ (3) ilkoo giran tooth/teeth are „There is a tooth/are teeth.‟ 1 Example (1) shows a masculine agreement form, (2) shows a feminine agreement form and (3) shows a plural gender agreement form (Corbett & Hayward 1987). Other agreeing elements are associative particles and demonstratives, each with three distinct forms for (m), (f) and (p) (Corbett & Hayward 1987). Four number values can be indicated on the noun: general number (lúban „(a) lion‟), plural number (lubanjool „lions‟), paucal number (lubanjaa „a few lions/some lions‟) and singular number (lubantiti „a/the particular lion‟) (Corbett & Hayward 1987; Corbett 2000: 10-11, 181). General number is used to refer to a noun when number is not considered relevant (Corbett 2000: 9-10). Like plural number, paucal number refers to more than one referent; however the referents of paucal number are fewer than those of plural number (Corbett & Hayward 1987; Corbett 2000: 22-23). In many cases the change of number on Bayso nouns will also cause a change in agreement. For example, all nouns will get (p) agreement when they have paucal number and many nouns take (m) agreement when they have plural number (Corbett & Hayward 1987). Nouns take the same agreement with singular number as they do with general number, which is either (m) or (f); nouns that take (p) agreement general number do not appear in singular number form (Corbett & Hayward 1987). Based on these changes there are eight different types of noun (Corbett & Hayward 1987); these are called agreement classes (Corbett & Hayward 1987; Corbett 1991: 147-150; Corbett 2013). Since all nouns take (p) agreement with paucal number and agreement is the same with general number and singular number, these different agreement classes are based on the difference between general and singular on the one hand and plural number on the other (Corbett & Hayward 1987); the agreements are as follows (Corbett & Hayward 1987): (m) with (gn/sg) stays (m) with (pl) (m) with (gn/sg) becomes (p) with (pl) (m) with (gn/sg) becomes (f) with (pl) (f) with (gn/sg) becomes (m) with (pl) (f) with (gn/sg) becomes (p) with (pl) (f) with (gn/sg) stays (f) with (pl) (p) with (gn) becomes (m) with (pl) (p) with (gn) stays (p) with (pl) These classes do not have equal size (Corbett & Hayward 1987). There are only eleven nouns in the last two groups combined (nouns that take (p)-agreement with general number); Corbett and Hayward (1987) claim that these nouns are lexically marked for (p)-agreement, making them exceptions similar to pluralia tantum nouns (nouns that appear only in plural form) in other languages. Because these nouns are exceptions, Corbett and Hayward (1987) dismiss the notion of plural as a gender. The classes which do not take (m)-agreement with plural number are also very small (incidentally also eleven in total: seven take (p) agreement and four (f) agreement) (Corbett & Hayward 1987). Therefore Corbett and Hayward (1987) label these nouns lexical exceptions too, leaving them with a regular gender system that distinguishes two genders ((m) and (f)) with singular and general, while losing that distinction in other numbers, because all regular nouns take (p)-agreement with paucal number and (m)-agreement with plural number (Corbett & Hayward 1987). Mous (2008), who adheres to the traditional position, does not agree with this analysis. He argues that there is a separate plural gender and that the number system is independent of the gender system, based mostly on one argument, illustrated by the following examples from Iraqw (Mous 2008): 2 (4) faʕa ka ħeer food.F is.F insufficient:F(:S.R.) „The food is insufficient.‟ (5) tluway ku ħéer rain.M is.M insufficient:M(:S.R.) „The rain is insufficient.‟ (6) ħayso ki ququmaar tail.P is.P short:P(:S.R.) „The tail is short.‟ (7) ħaysee ka ququmat tails.F is.F short:F:M.R. „The tails are short.‟ (8) daaqay ku ququmát boys.M is.M short:M:M.R. „The boys are short.‟ (9) na‟ii ki ququmat children.P is.P short:P:M.R. „The children are short.‟ These examples show that the agreements with gender and number are separate on adjectives, which in Corbett‟s analysis would lead to double marking of number whenever plural gender marking is involved (Mous 2008). The reason Corbett and Hayward missed this is because the two Cushitic languages they analysed (Bayso and „Afar) do not have such adjectival agreement systems (Mous 2008). Another argument by Mous (2008) is that when plural gender is taken to be a value of number a problem arises; there is now a divide between two types of nominal lexemes: one type specifies gender with singular but not with plural number, the other type specifies gender separately in singular and plural number, because gender with plural number does not have to be the same as the gender in the singular (Mous 2008).